NIRMA CONSUMER CARE LIMITED Vs. PRABHAL ENTERPRISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred against order dated 01. 09. 2003 made below application Exhibits 19 and 20 in Summary suit No. 706 of 2002 whereby Court No. 7, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, (the Subordinate Court) directed returning of the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before an Appropriate Court after holding that the said Court had no territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) THE Appellant herein is the original plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 706 of 2002. A preliminary issue was raised in the said proceedings as to whether the Subordinate Court had territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the said suit. By impugned order dated 11. 8. 2003, the Subordinate Court has come to the conclusion that the preliminary issue was required to be answered in the negative because no cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court. It has further been held that even the consent of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Subordinate Court when the Subordinate Court had no territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Subordinate Court has to consider the entire evidence placed on record by the plaintiff. For this purpose, attention was invited to the documents appearing in supplementary Paperbook filed on 24. 2. 2005 commencing from page No. 283 and ending with page No. 412. The emphasis was on the facts that the defendant had negotiated purchase of goods from the plaintiff at Ahmedabad, the order for goods had been placed at Ahmedabad, the payment had been made at Ahmedabad, 'c' forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 had been sent to the Appellant-plaintiff at Ahmedabad and settlement of account etc. had also taken place at Ahmedabad. The learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the entire bunch of evidence, though placed before the Trial Court has not been considered and hence, in light of decision of this Court rendered in case of Suvidha Builders Vs. Dilipsinh Pravinsinh, 2004 (3) GCD 2227 (Guj.) in a case where the order under challenge is based on an erroneous consideration of all relevant documents and certain documents have been ignored then the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal.