2022 (6) TMI 1307 - HC - Indian Laws

Court emphasizes importance of addressing jurisdiction promptly, upholds territorial jurisdiction order, directs expedited resolution.

The court set aside the order regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam, finding that the jurisdiction issue should have been tried as ... Territorial jurisdiction - preliminary issue - Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure - wilful admission - cause of action arising in part - exercise of discretionary power to decide jurisdictionPreliminary issue - territorial jurisdiction - The procedure of posting the petition on territorial jurisdiction together with the suit instead of trying it as a preliminary issue was erroneous and liable to be set aside. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the established principle that when a defendant alleges want of jurisdiction and an issue is framed on jurisdiction, that issue ought ordinarily to be tried as a preliminary issue for the convenience of the parties, since a finding of lack of jurisdiction at the final stage causes undue hardship. Reliance was placed on precedent holding that jurisdictional issues and issues of law which affect maintainability should be taken up first. The High Court found the trial court's procedure of deciding territorial jurisdiction at the final stage unjustified and therefore set aside the impugned order which had posted the petition along with the suit. [Paras 9, 11]Impugned order (Ext.P3) posting the territorial jurisdiction petition with the suit set aside; jurisdictional question should have been treated as a preliminary issue.Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure - wilful admission - cause of action arising in part - territorial jurisdiction - exercise of discretionary power to decide jurisdiction - Whether the Sub Court, Kottayam, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. - HELD THAT: - Although the normal course would be to remit for fresh consideration of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, the High Court exercised its discretion to decide the point in the interest of expeditious disposal given the age of the suit. The Court found that the defendants, in their written statement filed in 2013, had wilfully admitted that part of the transaction took place within Kottayam (goods consigned from Kottayam/Erattupetta). Applying Section 20(c) C.P.C., which permits suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises, the Court held that such wilful admission could not be retracted at a belated stage and that the Sub Court, Kottayam, therefore has territorial jurisdiction. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits within three months from receipt of the judgment copy. [Paras 10, 13]Territorial jurisdiction held to lie with the Sub Court, Kottayam; trial court directed to expedite disposal on merits within three months.Final Conclusion: The High Court set aside the impugned order that had postponed determination of territorial jurisdiction to the final stage; on the merits and by exercise of its discretion the Court held that Sub Court, Kottayam, has territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) C.P.C. in view of the defendants' wilful admission that part of the cause of action arose within Kottayam, and directed prompt disposal of the suit. Issues Involved:Challenge to the order in I.A.No.2/2020 regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order in I.A.No.2/2020, contending that the Sub Court, Kottayam, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as no cause of action arose within Kottayam district. The petitioner argued that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should have been tried as a preliminary issue, citing legal precedents for support. The petitioner emphasized that the trial court's procedure was erroneous and requested the court to consider and pass orders on the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary matter.2. The respondent argued that the petitioner's challenge to territorial jurisdiction lacked bona fides. The respondent pointed out that the defendants had previously filed a written statement admitting that part of the transaction leading to the Suit occurred within Kottayam's jurisdiction. Citing Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent contended that the Suit was rightly instituted in Sub Court, Kottayam, and the jurisdictional issue was not valid. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that since part of the transaction was within Kottayam's jurisdiction, the Sub Court had the necessary jurisdiction.3. The court held that when a defendant challenges the court's jurisdiction, it should be tried as a preliminary issue for the convenience of the parties. The court noted that the defendants had wilfully admitted in their written statement that part of the transaction occurred within the Sub Court's jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner's explanation in the reply affidavit for retracting the admission unconvincing, especially given the belated stage of the application. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to address the jurisdiction issue at the final stage was unjustified and set aside the order.4. Considering the age of the case and the need for expedited resolution, the court decided to address the jurisdiction issue itself in the interest of justice. Referring to Section 20 of the CPC, the court emphasized that a Suit can be instituted where the cause of action arises. Given the admission in the written statement, the court found that the Sub Court, Kottayam, had territorial jurisdiction over the Suit. The court directed the Sub Judge to expedite the case's disposal on merits within three months.5. The Original Petition challenging the jurisdiction issue was disposed of accordingly, with the court upholding the Sub Court's jurisdiction in the matter and directing expedited case resolution.Conclusion:The judgment addressed the challenge to the Sub Court's territorial jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of trying jurisdictional issues as preliminary matters for party convenience. The court upheld the Sub Court's jurisdiction based on admissions in the written statement and directed expedited case resolution on merits.