NABA KISHORE PAL Vs. SALABANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the plaintiff an unsuccessful candidate who sought election to the governing council of first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 384/1990 in the court of the principal munsiff, bijapur, Karnataka for the following relief:- "(a) declare that the alleged decision to nominate the defendant No. 2 as president-elect for the year 1990 of the defendant No. 1-association, is illegal and inoperative; (b) declare that the defendant No. 2-dr. N-k. Pal is not entitled to function either as president-elect for the year 1990 or as president for the year 1991, on the basis of the alleged decision to nominate him as president-elect for the year 1990; (c) declare that till the general body of defendant 1-association takes a decision on the report of the counting officer and tellers regarding the candidate who has been declared as elected nobody can function in any capacity on the basis of the election held; (d) grant a permanent injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 restraining the defendant No. 2 from functioning in any capacity on the basis of his nomination as president-elect for the year 1990, (e) saddle the costs of the suit on the defendants; (f) grant permission to amend the plaint if found necessary and; (g) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case". Contending that the election to the managing committee of the first defendant took place by way of postal ballot. The entire election took place by way of postal ballot by all its members who were on the electoral roll scattered all over the country postal ballots were opened at calcutta. After announcement of the result found illegalities and irregularities committed in holding the declaration. Aggrieved by such an illegality which deprived of his chance to get elected, plaintiff tiled a suit for the reliefs mentioned above. Regarding jurisdiction, according to him the munsiff court, bijapur has got jurisdiction since he is practicing there. He also filed an application under order 39, rules 1 & 2 of CPC requesting to restrain the defendants from functioning. After service of notice to the defendants injunction was granted. Defendants did not appear on the date of hearing. Its appears subsequently defendants filed an application for weating the stay. The said application is still pending. Defendants also filed written statement. After filing written statement, trial court framed issues. Among those, issues 5 and 6 relate to one regarding jurisdiction and another regarding court-fee. Those two issues read as follows:- "5. Whether defendant-2 proves that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit as contended in paras 1 and 18(19) of his written statement. 6. Whether the plaintiff has not correctly valued the suit reliefs and has not paid the proper and sufficient court-fee?".

(2.) defendant No. 2 requested that above two issues be decided as preliminary issues. On the request made by the defendant, trial court heard both sides. Defendant-2 in support of his case contended that the munsiff court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the issues. He relied upon some of the authorities of various high court and the Supreme Court which interpreted scope of Section 20 of CPC. They are: AIR 1969 Calcutta page 224, ujjal talukdar v netal chand koley. "everything which, if not proved gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment must be part of the cause of action. Cause of action does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. Evidence of a fact should not be confused with the fact itself. Even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the court within the territorial limits of which that little occurs. Where the entire dispute over a cricket match was occasioned, discussed and settled in calcutta. Mere fact that the decision was conveyed to the plaintiff club by a letter received by the club of sealdah will not take the cause of action to sealdah and give sealdah court jurisdiction". (2) AIR 1974 Himachal Pradesh page 32, s.s.mittal v bar council of India and others. "advocate's name removed from roll by bar council of India at Delhi and copy of order sent to him at simla - cause of action arises at Delhi and not at simla". (3) AIR 1975 Delhi page 15, smt. Kamla chopra v life insurance corporation of India and others, (4) AIR 1985 supreme court page 1289, state of Rajasthan and others v mjs. Swaika properties and another. Thinking that the reasons gives in the above decisions and the law laid down therein are on the same footing. Defendant-2 requested the trial court to hold issue Nos. 5 and 6 in his favour.

(3.) as against this plaintiff submitted, that he is one of the members also sought election to the governing council by sending his ballot papers by way of post from bijapur where he is practicing. According to him part of cause of action arose at bijapur also. Hence, court situated therein has jurisdiction. He submitted that it is not the place where the ballot papers were opened not the place/office of the governing council situated which determines the jurisdiction, unless specific rules furnished relating the office of the governing place or place of election etc. If it is shown that a part of cause of action has taken place at a particular place, person interested can seek for remedies in that court alone. In support of his contentions, he relied upon two decisions of this court viz., (1)air 1978 Karnataka page 113, manappa manikappa sheded and others v bhaskharappa a. Bhasana and others. Wherein it is held as follows:- "the cause of action is a bundle of essential facts and refers entirely to the media upon which the plaintiffs ask the court to arrive at the conclusion in their favour. Where the district church council of a chiristian sect by a resolution compulsorily affiliated the churches of the sect in an area to another sect with which the former sect had absolutely no connection, it could not be said that the members of the former sect in the affected area did not have cause of action to sue this council in the court within whose jurisdiction they resided for getting the resolution quashed. The fact that the council happened to be located outside the jurisdiction of the court in question was immaterial". (2) AIR 1983 Karnataka page 43, d.l. suresh babu and etc. V institute of chartered accountants of India and others. It is held as follows:- "that a part of the cause of action, if not whole, had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka high court. If that is so, that Karnataka high court had jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, notwithstanding the institute and the panel had their offices at Delhi."