MANIKGARH CEMENT PROPRIETOR CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES Vs. PATEL NARAYANDAS BHAGWANDAS FERTILISERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants from Special Civil Suit No. 252 of 1990 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, have filed this revision petition against the order passed on 2-11-1993. The defendants in the said suit, the present Petitioners, raised issue regarding jurisdiction in the written statements, contending that the cause of action had taken place at Gadchandur and not at Jalgaon. The Petitioners are having their business at Gadchandur and the goods were to be supplied at Gadchandur. The order was placed at Gadchandur and part of the price was also paid at Gadchandur. So, the Civil Court, Senior Division, Jalgaon, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contended that on 4th October 1989, there was a contract between the parties and the parties had agreed that the Civil Court, Senior Division at Chandrapur will have the jurisdiction to decide any dispute with respect to the contract. Thus, the jurisdiction of Jalgaon Court was excluded by the contract between the parties and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in the Jalgaon Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed an interim relief application and at that time, the defendants had taken the contention that in view of the provisions of section 9a of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of jurisdiction of the Court be first decided. However, later on, the application for interim relief was not pressed by the plaintiff and so, no question arose of giving the decision on the question of jurisdiction as per the provisions of section 9a of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it appears that on 6-11-1989, the learned Civil Judge had passed an order that the question will be considered at the time of framing issues; and, accordingly, issue No. 4 is with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

(3.) THE plaintiff then filed an application on 2-11-1993 praying that issue No. 4 be treated as preliminary issue and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, held that it would be just and proper to consider the issue after recording the evidence of the parties; and, therefore, that application was rejected.