Madras High Court
M/S.Fawas Footwear vs M/S.Bostik India Private Limited on 22 July, 2021
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.16303 of 2018
M/s.Fawas Footwear
Represented by its Proprietor,
487, Kilpauk Garden Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Petitioner
Vs
M/s.Bostik India Private Limited,
Rep. by its Technical Service Executive
J.Balaji
No.W-393/9, 4th Floor,
A.R.Building, School Road,
Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
30.11.2017 made in C.M.A.No.133 of 2015 on the file of the VII
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the fair and
decreetal order dated 03.08.2013 made in I.A.No.16914 of 2012 in
O.S.No.2121 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
For Respondent : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 30.11.2017 made in C.M.A.No.133 of 2015 on the file of
the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the fair
and decreetal order dated 03.08.2013 made in I.A.No.16914 of 2012 in
O.S.No.2121 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai, thereby ordered to return the suit to be presented in the
proper Court.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the
plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.2121 of 2012 for
recovery of money. According to the respondent, they are the
manufacturer and dealer of adhesive. During the course of business, the
petitioner approached the respondent for the supply of adhesive and
received the product worth of Rs.90,641/- in various invoices. Even
then, the petitioner did not make any payment but admitted the liability.
Hence, the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
3. Pending suit, the petitioner filed a petition to return the suit
to be presented in the proper Court for the reason that the suit ought to
have been filed before the Courts in Bangalore not in Chennai. No
cause of action arose in Chennai. The respondent herein had supplied
the goods through his Consignor situated at Ambur, Vellore District to
the petitioner factory at Ambur. The respondent Company situated at
Bangalore and as such, there is no cause of action has arisen at Chennai.
4. Whereas, the respondent contended that the petition was
filed only to drag the proceedings and to harass the respondent company.
As per Section 20 of the CPC, the respondent had right to sue either at
the residence of the petitioner or where the cause of action arose. Insofar
as the present suit is concerned, it was dealt with by the Chennai Branch
at Anna Nagar West Extension. The petitioner is residing at Kilpauk
within the jurisdiction of the Court below. All the orders for the supply
of adhesives were made only in the Anna Nagar Branch Office of the
respondent herein and the goods were supplied to the factory of the
petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
5. It is also seen that already the respondent filed a similar
suit as against the sister concern of the petitioner i.e., Irbaz Shoes. In the
said suit also, the petitioner's sister concern raised the same issue and this
Court held in C.R.P.(PD) No.4495 of 2013 dated 22.04.2016, as
follows :-
7. The issue that has to be decided by this Court
revolves around a narrow compass as to the scope of Order
7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and on what grounds the Court shall
return the Plaint to be represented before the appropriate
Court. The scope of Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. is very
limited and the Court shall return the Plaint where the
Court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the Suit and
when no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction
of the Court. The legislative intent behind Order 7, Rule 10
of C.P.C. is to ensure that a Court having no jurisdiction
shall direct the Plaintiff to approach the appropriate Court
which would have jurisdiction over the said matter by
returning the Plaint thereby affording him an opportunity
to pursue the matter in accordance with law. It is also
pertinent to note that Rules 10-A & 10-B, which have been
added by virtue of the C.P.C. (Amendment Act, 1976)
elaborates the power of the Court for returning the Plaint
and the manner in which the same ought to be done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
8. Therefore, the first aspect that has to be
considered before entertaining an Application under Order
7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. is to ascertain whether the Court has
any jurisdiction to entertain the matter or not or whether at
least a part of cause of action has arisen within its
jurisdiction. Section 20 of C.P.C. elucidates where the Suit
can be filed as stated below:
"20. Other Suits to be instituted where
Defendants reside or cause of action arises.-- Subject to the
limitations aforesaid, every Suit shall be instituted in a
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) the Defendant, or each of the Defendants
where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides,
or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the Defendants, where there are more
than one, at the time of the commencement of the Suit,
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, provided that in such case either
the leave of the Court is given, or the Defendants, who do
not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for
gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
Explanation.-- A Corporation shall be deemed to carry on
business at its sole or principal office in India or, in
respect of any cause of action arising at any place where
it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
9 . A cursory perusal of Section 20, makes it
very clear that a Suit shall be filed where the Defendant
resides or the cause of action has arisen including where
the Principal Office or a Subordinate Office of a
Corporation is situated. In the case at hand, it is even not
disputed by the Revision Petitioner that its office is
situated at Chennai, which is well within the jurisdiction
of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, it
has also been pointed out that considerable part of the
transactions have also taken place within the jurisdiction
of the Court in which the Suit has been filed. Thus, the
Revision Petitioner has not made out a case for invocation
of Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C., since it has not been
established that the Court in which the Suit has been filed
has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the matter. At this
juncture, it is relevant to point out that the decision cited
by the Petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts and
would not apply to the present case.
10. Once when the Revision Petitioner has not
been able to demonstrate that the Court in which the Suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
has been instituted has no jurisdiction at all, I am of the
opinion that the Trial Court was perfectly justified in
dismissing the Application filed under Order 7, Rule 10 of
C.P.C., for returning the Plaint. The sine qua non for an
Application to be sustainable under Order 7, Rule 10 of
C.P.C. is that the Court in, which the Suit has been filed
should be a Court that has no jurisdiction at all to
entertain the Suit and the said fact has to be convincingly
established.
11. In light of the above said discussions, I do
not find any merit in the present Civil Revision Petition
and the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the
aspect as to whether the Courts at Chennai have
Territorial jurisdiction is not being finally decided by this
Order and this issue will be decided by the Trial Court
after evidences led by the parties on all issues.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.”
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Therefore, the Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed. Since, the suit is of the year 2012, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
22.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Lpp
To
The XV Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
C.R.P.(P.D).No.2781 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.16303 of 2018
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
