ROHIT SHEKHAR Vs. NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of cpc for rejection of plaint. Defendant no. 1 has sought rejection of the plaintiff on the ground that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The rejection of plaint is also sought on the ground of limitation.

(2.) PLAINTIFF in this case has sought a declaration that he was a naturally born son of defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 2, who is not the wife of defendant no. 1. It is plaintiff's own case that he was living with defendant no. 2, his mother. However, defendant no. 1 who allegedly sired him had not been recognizing him to be his son from the year 1995 onward, when plaintiff was aged around 16 years (plaintiff is now around 30 years of age and was aged around 29 years when he filed the present suit ). It is also submitted by plaintiff that defendant no. 1 had been giving threatening calls to defendant no. 2, his mother and in the year 2001 when plaintiff tried to meet defendant no. 1 in Delhi, defendant no. 1 got him insulted. Between 2002 and 2005 plaintiff and his mother had attended some of the functions of defendant no. 1. However, on 7th December 2005, plaintiff approached defendant no. 1 with his maternal grandmother at the airport in Delhi to seek an appointment with him but defendant no. 1 avoided him and thereafter many attempts have been made by plaintiff to contact defendant no. 1 but he refused to meet.

(3.) IT is submitted by counsel for defendant that in view of the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint, this plaint was barred by limitation and also that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Admittedly, the residential address of defendant no. 1 is of Andhra Pradesh. Defendant no. 2 is the mother of plaintiff and there is no denial that she is supporting the case of plaintiff. No relief has been sought qua her except that she and defendant no. 1 should make a publication in the newspaper that plaintiff was their son. It is submitted that no such relief can be granted by the Court and Court cannot compel a person to make a publication in the newspaper of any fact. Thus, this relief was deliberately added in the plaint and defendant no. 2 was deliberately made a party to the plaint just to create jurisdiction of this Court when this court has no jurisdiction. Defendant no. 1 was living in Hyderabad being the governor of Andhra Pradesh in the Governor House and if at all there was territorial jurisdiction of any Court it was the Court at Andhra Pradesh since suit was practically against defendant no. 1 personally.