Civil court jurisdiction and statutory bar cannot be decided on disputed facts without evidence; plaint-based threshold scrutiny remains decisive.

Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded unless the statutory bar is express or necessarily implied, and the plaint must clearly disclose that the suit falls within that bar. On the pleaded facts, the suit was treated as enforcing an asserted civil right arising from a listing arrangement and revocation-related events, so jurisdiction could not be held barred from the plaint alone. Where the objection depends on disputed factual matters, including alleged non-compliance with revocation conditions and later withdrawal of revocation, those issues require evidence and cannot be conclusively decided at the preliminary stage. The matter was therefore directed to proceed to trial, with jurisdictional and related defences to be determined after evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit was barred by Section 22E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, Section 23L of that Act and Rule 19(5) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957; and (ii) whether the trial court could finally decide the jurisdictional objection at the preliminary stage on the basis of the pleadings and disputed factual defence.

Issue (i): whether the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit was barred by Section 22E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, Section 23L of that Act and Rule 19(5) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily excluded unless the exclusion is express or arises by necessary implication. For determining the bar at the threshold, the plaint averments are relevant. On the plaint as filed, the suit was for enforcement of an asserted civil right arising from the listing arrangement and the pleaded revocation of suspension, and it did not clearly disclose that the claim was a challenge to an appealable order attracting the statutory appellate bar. The question whether the defendants could ultimately establish ouster of jurisdiction depended upon proof of the factual pleas taken in defence.

Conclusion: The suit could not be held barred on the basis of the plaint alone; the jurisdictional objection was not finally established.

Issue (ii): whether the trial court could finally decide the jurisdictional objection at the preliminary stage on the basis of the pleadings and disputed factual defence.

Analysis: The objection raised by the defendants involved disputed factual assertions, including alleged non-compliance with the conditions attached to revocation and the alleged subsequent withdrawal of revocation. Such matters required evidence and could not be conclusively determined only from the written statement or assumptions drawn from it. The trial court was therefore not justified in finally rejecting the plaint-side case on those disputed facts at the preliminary stage, and the matter had to proceed to evidence for proper adjudication of the issues.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection and related factual defences were required to be decided after evidence, not conclusively at the preliminary stage.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside to the extent it precluded an uninfluenced trial on the jurisdictional and related issues, and the suit was directed to proceed to trial with all issues to be decided after evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be clearly made out from the plaint and the governing statute, and where the bar depends on disputed facts, the issue cannot be conclusively determined at a preliminary stage without evidence.

---