Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Rajesh Joshi (2023:Rj-Jd:31604)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7701 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31604]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 154/2019

1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Through Managing Director, Human Resources Division, Hdfc Bank House, IInd Floor, Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013

2. Deputy Vice President, Hdfc Bank Limited, B-54, Sidhi Vinayak Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001

3. Hdfc Bank Limited, Through Bank Manager, Near Dharmstup, Puranisadak, Churu

----Petitioners Versus Rajesh Joshi S/o Shree Devidutt, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Joshi, R/o Village Dulrasar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu Presently Senior Manager, Hdfc Bank, Branch - Churu (Rajasthan)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Saraswat

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

26/09/2023

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order

dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Suit

No.40/2018 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 r.w.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the

defendant Bank had been rejected.

2. The ground raised by the defendant Bank was that there was

a condition in the agreement entered into between the parties that

in case any dispute arises out of the service conditions, the

Mumbai Court will have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the

[2023:RJ-JD:31604] (2 of 3) [CR-154/2019]

present dispute could not be entertained by any Court except at

Mumbai.

3. The ground as raised by the defendant has been rejected by

the learned Court below relying upon the judgment of this Court in

Save the Children Fund U.K. and Ors. vs. Suresh Chandra

Sharma and Ors., 2006 (2) RLW 1433. The Court, while

rejecting the application, held that the issue, if any, regarding

jurisdiction or maintainability of the suit before the Court, could

only be decided by framing an issue qua the same, the same

being a mixed question of law and fact.

4. So far as the reason for rejection as given by the learned

Court below is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that

the same does not deserve any interference for the following

reasons:

(i) To decide the issue whether any Court, which otherwise does

not have jurisdiction, can be granted exclusive jurisdiction by

consent of the parties, the Court would definitely be required

to go into the fact as to whether any cause of action arose at

Mumbai by virtue of which it could have been granted the

exclusive jurisdiction. The said fact could not have been

considered/decided by the learned Court below by a bare

reading of the plaint and hence, as rightly held by the Court

below, the same could have been decided only after an issue

been framed.

(ii) A bare reading of the plaint reflects that the plaintiff was

appointed at Churu, worked at Churu and was terminated by

the Bank at Churu. Therefore, the issue whether any cause of

action arose at Churu and whether the suit would be

[2023:RJ-JD:31604] (3 of 3) [CR-154/2019]

maintainable at Churu despite the clause of exclusive

jurisdiction to the Court at Mumbai, could not have been

decided by a bare reading of the plaint in terms of Order VII

Rule 11, CPC.

(iii) Even otherwise, even if the Court reaches to a conclusion that

it does not have the jurisdiction to try a suit, the plaint could

not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Court

would be required to return the plaint in terms of order VII

Rule 10, CPC to be filed before the proper Court.

5. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find

any ground to interfere with the order impugned in the present

revision petition and hence the present revision petition is

dismissed.

6. The stay petition as well as all the pending applications also

stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 444-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)