BADRINARAYAN Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 148 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Order of the Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff was an Abkari contractor in 1360-F. for the villages of Vemulgunta and Lachamapur Khurd in the district of Nalgonda. A penalty of Rs. 9,767-8-0 was imposed on him by the Excise Superintendent for the alleged tapping of 145 toddy and 500 sendhi trees without paying the excise-duty. He carried an appeal to the Collector, the appellate authority under the rules, against this levy and a further appeal to the Excise Commissioner unsuccessfully. He then sought to have this order revised by the Minister for Revenue and Excise. As this was also rejected, the appellant brought the aforesaid suit against the officials concerned and the Minister impugning the levy of penalty as being ultra vires, illegal and void.

(2.) Various defences were raised tp the suit but the one material for the purposes of the present enquiry is that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the contract was entered into and executed at Nalgonda and the order impeached was made at Nalgonda. The relevant issue of the issues framed for trial is : " Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as pleaded in paragraph (7) of the written statement ?" The Fourth Additional Judge took up this question as the preliminary issue and decided it against the plaintiff. It is that order of the trial Court that is now under appeal.

(3.) The short question for decision in the appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant could maintain the suit in the City Civil Court. The plaint proceeded on the assumption that the defendants resided within the territorial limits of the City Civil Court, having their offices therein. The material provision of law is section ao, Civil Procedure Code. It recites :