M/S Chintapuri Steel Private Ltd. vs Viswanath Dokania
2022 Latest Caselaw 4191 Jhar

                                       1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(C) No.138 of 2013

----

1.M/s Chintapuri Steel Private Ltd., Village Indra P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh (represented by petitioner no.2 as he is the Managing Director)

2.Sri Jamna Das Manik, son of late Hargovind Das Manik, resident of Thana Chowk, Ramgarh, PO, PS and District Ramgarh

3.Sri Kamal Kishore Singhania son of late Matadin Singhania, Jaiswal Colony Ramgarh Cantt., PO and PS Ramgarh

4.Sri Umesh Prasad Modi

5.Sri Dayanand Modi

6.Sri Om Prakash Modi, Sl.No.4 to 6 all sons of late Loknath Modi

7.Sri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, s/o late Bhiksha Ram Agrawal Sl.No.4 to 7 all residents of Shivaji Road, Ramgarh, PO, PS and District Ramgarh ..... Petitioners

-- Versus --

Viswanath Dokania, s/o Kanhaiya Lal Dokania and Others ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate For the Resp.1to 3 :- Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr.Janak Kumar Mishra, Advocate

----

5/14.10.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribagh in Title Suit No.55 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 30.05.2012 filed on behalf of the defendant nos.1 to 7/petitioners under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue has been rejected, pending in that learned court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaint was filed which was registered as Title Suit No.55 of 2008 and valuation of the suit was shown as Rs.61,000/-. He submits that the defendant who is the petitioner has appeared and filed written statement. He submits that on 30.05.2012 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner nos.1 to 7 on which the petitioners raising the ground that the suit is under-valued and the value of the suit is Rs.2.50 lakhs and suit is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned court and the question cannot be decided primarily under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC. He submits that the learned court has rejected the petition on flimsy grounds and that is why notices were issued.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned court has passed a

reasoned order and has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that the question of facts are involved and that can be decided along with the final judgment. He further adds and submits that however the petition was rejected but the learned court in the interest of justice has re-cast the issue no.10. He further submits that now pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned court has been raised to Rs.7 lakhs in light of Gazette notification dated 11.6.2019.

In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has perused the impugned order and finds that the learned court has rightly held issues of the case has already been framed on 22.6.2011 and thereafter hearing has been started and even on 13.3.2012 the plaintiff has filed a petition for deposition of PW-1 and the defendant was directed to cross examine that witness and inspite of cross examining such witness defendant has filed the said petition for framing the preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction. It is well settled that the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of facts and is requiring evidence to be adduced from both the sides. The learned court has rightly observed that the jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue only after it can be disposed of without referring to any evidence, mixed question of facts and law are there, which requires to be decided along with final judgment. The learned court has rejected the petition however in the interest of justice has taken care to recast the issue no.10 as to whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. The learned court has passed a well- reasoned order even the interest of the petitioner has been taken care of. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.138 of 2013 is dismissed. Since the main petition is dismissed, petition pending if any, also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/