VADADA GANESWARA RAO Vs. MUMMIDISETTI VIJAYA CHAMUNDESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in CRP No.3435 of 2003 filed OS No.44 of 2000 against the respondent in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Salur, for refund of the amount covered by an agreement of sale. The petitioners in CRP No.3471 of 2003 filed O.S.No.45 of 2000 in the same Court against the respondents for identical relief. The respondents filed written statements and raised several objections including the one of territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court framed identical issues in both the suits.

(2.) The respondents filed I.A..Nos.127 and 126 of 2002 under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC with a prayer to decide the question of limitation, and territorial jurisdiction covered by issues 2 and 4 as preliminary issues. Accordingly, the trial Court took up those issues, without recording evidence. The question as to limitation was not touched. It was, however, held vide separate orders, dated 30.6.2003, that the trial Court does not have territorial jurisdiction, since the agreements of sale were executed at a place in the State of Orissa. Accordingly, it returned the plaints. The said orders are under challenge in these revisions.

(3.) Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the agreements of sale were executed in the State of Orissa, the subject- matter thereof is a property within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. He contends that revocation of the agreements has taken place at Salur, and in that view of the matter, the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction.