Territorial jurisdiction at the Lucknow Bench depends on actual cause of action, not party location or artificial pleading.

Territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench depends on whether at least part of the cause of action arises within the areas assigned to it under Clause 14 of the U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. A writ petition cannot be validly filed at Lucknow merely because an impleaded authority is stationed there if the impugned order and underlying cause of action lie outside that territorial limit; such matters belong, if at all, before Allahabad. The registry is required to scrutinise territorial jurisdiction at filing, verify the actual cause of action, and take administrative steps to prevent artificial creation of jurisdiction and wrongly instituted matters at Lucknow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition could be entertained at the Lucknow Bench when no part of the cause of action arose within the Avadh area and the impugned order was passed outside that territorial jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the registry should scrutinise territorial jurisdiction at the stage of filing and adopt measures to prevent artificial creation of jurisdiction at the Lucknow Bench.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition could be entertained at the Lucknow Bench when no part of the cause of action arose within the Avadh area and the impugned order was passed outside that territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Clause 14 of the U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 contemplates the Lucknow Bench only for cases arising in the notified Oudh areas, and the second proviso permits transfer only of cases arising in those areas. A petition in which no part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction cannot be validly presented at Lucknow merely by impleading an authority stationed there. The principal seat of the High Court is at Allahabad, and petitions having no territorial nexus with Lucknow must be filed there.

Conclusion: Such a writ petition is not maintainable before the Lucknow Bench and lies, if at all, at Allahabad.

Issue (ii): Whether the registry should scrutinise territorial jurisdiction at the stage of filing and adopt measures to prevent artificial creation of jurisdiction at the Lucknow Bench.

Analysis: The order emphasises that the filing registry must verify whether any part of the cause of action actually falls within the Bench's territorial limits and must not rely only on the array of parties. It also directs standardisation of filing records and administrative scrutiny of cases wrongly instituted at Lucknow, so that jurisdictional misuse can be prevented at the threshold.

Conclusion: The registry was directed to make territorial scrutiny mandatory and to take administrative steps to prevent misuse of the Lucknow Bench jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The order declares that territorial jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arises, rejects the practice of creating jurisdiction artificially at Lucknow, and issues administrative directions to ensure proper filing scrutiny and transfer of wrongly instituted matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench exists only where at least part of the cause of action arises within the areas assigned to it, and jurisdiction cannot be created artificially by impleading a party located at Lucknow.

---