MAGNET CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Vs. KRISHNA TRADING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Order no. 19 dtd. 22/12/2022 as passed in Title Suit No. 1289 of 2022 by the learned Judge-in-Charge, Bench No.XII, City Civil Court at Calcutta has been impugned. By the impugned order learned trial court has dismissed the plaintiffs' application dtd. 16/6/2022 as filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and at the same time directed for return of the plaint for presentation of the same before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the same holding that the said Court had got no territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court. It is contended by Mr. Banerjee that a serious miscarriage of justice has been occurred since the learned trial court while disposing an injunction application passed the order impugned i.e. an order for return of plaint. It is further contended by Mr. Banerjee, that learned trial court ought to have framed a preliminary issue to determine as to whether the said Court has got territorial jurisdiction or not. It is further contended by Mr. Banerjee that for the sake of argument even if, it is accepted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in passing the impugned order even then learned trial court is not justified in passing the order impugned overlooking the provision of Order 7 Rule 10 A. It is further argued by Mr. Banerjee that on cursory perusal of the plaint as filed before the learned trial court vis-a-vis the impugned judgment it would reveal that the learned trial court completely misdirected itself in interpreting Sec. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the facts and context as involved in the said suit. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant appeal after setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the prayer portion of the plaint as filed in Title Suit No. 1289 of 2022 before the learned trial court. Attention of ours is also drawn to the schedule of the said plaint. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that on conjoint perusal of the prayers of the said plaint and the schedule of the plaint it would reveal that the suit property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court and that the present appellants /plaintiffs before the learned trial court have sought for a decree for declaration in respect of their right to carry on the construction work over the said property. It is thus argued that in view of the provision of Sec. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure learned trial court is absolutely justified in holding that the said Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit and thus rightly passed the impugned order.