S.S. DAVE AND COMPANY Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dt.4.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chandrapur whereby plaint was returned. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, in the impugned order, the learned trial Judge made reference to a clause in the contract between the parties, which is mentioned as below :

(3.) PRIMARILY speaking, the Civil Courts are competent and have plenary jurisdiction to try all suits of Civil nature; unless the cognizance of the Civil Suit is barred either by express provision of law or impliedly. Here, in the present case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant raised preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. But, the learned trial Judge curiously and suo motu framed issue as to maintainability of suit upon pleadings as no.3A as to whether the suit is tenable in view of Condition No. 24 as mentioned in Exh.42 on page no.31 and went on to answer it in the negative on the pretext of existence of clause 24 in the contract. This is the suit wherein the trial Court had already framed the issues. Under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provision reads thus :