HARISHBHAI K. PATEL Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, VALSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioner challenges the order dated 28-9-98 of Civil Judge, (S.D.), Navsari, in Special Civil Suit No. 66/97, under which his application for raising objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit has been rejected.

(2.) The defendant-petitioner gave the application and contended that the suit which has been filed by the plaintiff Telecom District Manager for recovery of outstanding telephone dues is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned trial Court under the impugned order dismissed the application aforesaid. Hence this civil revision application.

(3.) Same contention has been raised before this Court also by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find from the judgment of the learned trial Court that bill raised for outstanding telephone dues against the defendant-petitioner by the plaintiffs-respondents has not been disputed by the defendant-petitioner. Not only this, he has not taken any remedy including filing civil suit challenging the correctness of that bill. In view of this fact, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the section which is sought to be pressed in service more so to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this case certainly is not attracted. The matter would have been different where the amount of bill is disputed at appropriate time and further the appropriate proceedings are taken for challenging its correctness. What for these objections have been raised, its purpose is clearly borne out so that the petitioner may get the matter adjudicated by arbitrator only on depositing the 5% of the amount of bill. As that is the only purpose and object of filing this application and in the facts of this case on which there is no dispute, the learned trial Court is perfectly justified and on correct path not to accept the said application filed by defendant-petitioner. This case does not fall under any clauses, namely (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. No jurisdictional error is also committed. In such case where the amount of telephone bill raised is under challenge, the only remedy available to Telecom District Manager is to file a suit for recovery thereof and a just claim of the Dep ment cannot be allowed to be defeated only on such technical ground by the Courts. It is certainly a case where otherwise also, on equities, the defendant-petitioner deserves no indulgence. In such matters, the conduct of the party before the Civil Court is very much important and relevant. It is a case where undisputed payment of telephone bill has not been paid by the defendant-petitioner and when the Department filed a suit for recovery thereof he raised all sort of technical objections. The purpose of filing of this application as well as of this civil revision application is apparent and that is to delay the proceedings of the suit so that the decree of the amount of telephone bill may not be passed and he may retain this amount with him. Such purpose cannot be allowed to be fulfilled by the Court by granting such application. Moreover, I fail to see how in case this order impugned in this civil revision application is allowed to stand, will occasion any failure of justice or will cause injury to the defendant-petitioner. The amount of bill is undisputed and as such, there is no question of sending the matter to the arbitrator.