BABY CHAITRA Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayan, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri. Ajith Kalyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, fourth defendant before trial court and being aggrieved by order passed by trial court ordering for the plaint being returned to be presented before jurisdictional court, present appeal is filed. Though respondents 7, 10 and 11 are served and represented, none appears. Respondents 5 and 9 are served and unrepresented. Question of considering the plea of other defendants/respondents (1, 2, 3, 6 and 8) would not arise, since any order that would be passed in this appeal would not prejudice their rights in either way.

(2.) IT is the contention of Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayana, learned counsel appearing for appellant -plaintiff that trial court could not have ordered for return of plaint on the ground that item No. 7 of suit schedule property had been sold during pendency of suit and remaining properties being situated outside the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bangalore, as a ground. He would submit that jurisdiction of the Court is determined as on the date of plaint which in the instant case was well within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bangalore, since item No. 7 of suit schedule property was situated within the jurisdiction of Bangalore city and said property has since been sold by fourth defendant with the leave of Court and issue regarding whether item No. 7 of suit schedule property is a joint family property or not, is one required to be considered by the trial Court and merely because said property has been sold, would not take away the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bangalore. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. He would also submit that said contention is fortified by the full bench Judgment of the High Court of Orissa in the case of District Judge, Puri (Petitioner), (M.J.C. No. 77 of 1968, D/ - 26 -8 -1970, reference made by Dist. J., Puri, D/ - 19.10.1968) reported in : AIR 1971 Orissa 89.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order in question, I am of the considered view that short question that arises for determination in this case is: