LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-160

MADHURI DEVI Vs. KAMLAKAR DUBEY

Decided On December 20, 2005
MADHURI DEVI Appellant
V/S
KAMLAKAR DUBEY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-defendant in a suit for injunction, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 27th July, 2002, whereby the trial Court has decided issue No. 7 against the petitioner-defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs, approached the revisional Court by means of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional Court vide order dated 16th July, 2005 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-defendant and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court, thus this writ petition before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, both the Courts below relying upon the provision of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure have held that in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit can be filed at either of the places, namely, at District Varanasi or District Mirzapur, because admittedly the property in dispute is situated in Varanasi as well as in Mirzapur Districts, therefore, filing of the suit at Mirzapur cannot be said to be in any way illegal or this can also not be said that the Court at Mirzapur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit in question. Thus the trial Court rejected the application and decided issue No. 7 against the petitioner- defendant. The view taken by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court. The revisional Court for the purposes has relied upon the decisions of the apex Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 577; AIR 1972 Delhi 90; AIR 1975 Alld. etc. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant could not demonstrate that the view taken by the revisional Court, whereby the revisional Court affirmed the view taken by the trial Court with regard to jurisdiction of the Court in any way suffers from the error, much less error of law, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.