BASA JAGANNADHARAO Vs. BHARAT MOTOR PARCEL SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24-9-1997 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sompet, Srikakulam District in LA. No.723 of 1996 in O.S. No.72 of 1994. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed the application made by the respondent herein holding that the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sompet, has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Holding so, it directed the petitioner-plaintiff to present the suit before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, within two weeks from the date of the said order.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit being O.S. No.72 of 1994 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge., Sompet, for recovery of all monetary benefits in a sum of Rs. 85,969-46 ps. In the suit, he claimed that he has been an employee/agent of the defendant concern for more than 30 years, and that he is entitled for the suit amount. The defendant filed written statement inter alia taking a plea that the Court at Sompet has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as at the time of appointment, the plaintiff executed an agreement agreeing to the jurisdiction of the burt at Rajahmundry. The lower Court framed the issues on 15-5-1995, including Issue No.1 as to the territorial jurisdiction at Sompet.

(3.) The defendant filed LA. No.723 of 1996 praying the lower Court to decide issue No.l as to the territorial jurisdiction, under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the CPC) as a preliminary issue before the commencement of the trial. In the application, the defendant averred that the plaintiff executed two agreements in favour of the defendant on 8-6-1961 and 16-12-1971 specifically agreeing to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Rajahmundry, to entertain the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, the Court at Sompet has no territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed counter-affidavit disputing the factual and legal position. He also denied the "admission and execution" of the documents relied on by the defendant. He also contended that the cause of action arose at Sompet, as he was an agent/clerk of the branch of the defendant concern.