NARAYAN GANESH JOGLEKAR Vs. TRIMBAK VISHNU JOGLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff who has filed Civil Suit No. 188 of 1983 in the Civil Court at Pune. The suit was assigned to the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D. and the plaintiff made an application for an interim injunction. The defendant thereafter filed a reply to the application and his written statement and the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, J D. Pune, who was ultimately assigned the suit, framed various points for determination and on point No. 5 held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This decision given on 3-9-1983 was impugned by the plaintiff in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 458 of 1983 and 459 of 1983. Both the appeals arose out of the very order. The first appeal was from the order rejecting the application injection and the second appeal was from the order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the basis that the ordinary Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

(2.) Before me, it has been submitted that both the Courts below were totally in error in considering the plea of jurisdiction and in coming to the conclusion that they had no jurisdiction. Before dealing with the plea raised on behalf of the writ petitioner, I may dispose of certain points raised by the Advocate in reply, in the first place, he has submitted that in its limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the power of superintendence ought not to be exercised against such decisions. I fail to see the point. Day in and out this Court has exercised jurisdiction under Art. 227 particularly with regard to such decisions. However, it would be correct to say that it is not every error or mistake of law which calls for interference and consequential correction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. However, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction at the threshold stage cannot be equated with other errors of law or procedure, particularly if it is urged and subsequently established that the approach of the Courts below was totally erroneous and on the basis of the said approach and after following improper procedure an incorrect conclusion as to jurisdiction arrived at. Again, it is to be remembered that such decisions on questions of jurisdiction have value as precedent and if the decision is allowed to stand, the later decision, being the decision of the District Court at Pune, would be binding on Civil Judges and Small Cause Court Judges at Pune. It becomes necessary to scrutinise the order of rejection of plaint and to consider whether Courts below have approached the problem correctly and arrived at a proper conclusion.

(3.) It has been submitted further that the entire record should be sent for in order to decide the issue. There is no substance whatsoever in the plea. No evidence was recorded by the Courts below. The issue was tried as a preliminary issue and decided on the pleading as they stood. The pleadings are available for my perusal. There can be no question, therefore, of calling for record and such arguments must be recorded as arguments of futility made for the sake only for causing further delay.