LAWS(ORI)-2002-8-50

PURNIMA SAHU Vs. SNEHADHARA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Decided On August 22, 2002
PURNIMA SAHU Appellant
V/S
SNEHADHARA INDUSTRIES LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice against the opposite party was published in local newspaper as it was not possible to serve the notice on it in regular course. The same was accepted as sufficient. None appears for the opposite party when the matter is taken up.

(2.) This application is directed, against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in Title Suit No. 17 of 1977 dismissing the suit on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

(3.) The petitioner was the plaintiff in Court below and she filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of damages The defendant after entering appearance filed its written statement along with an application under order 151 C. P. C., raising the question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, which was taken up as a preliminary issue. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) answered the said preliminary issue against the plaintiffpetitioner and dismissed the suit due to lack of jurisdiction. While taking up the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, the trial Court entered into the arena of locus standi as well as the status of the plaintiff and also decided the same against the plaintiff. As it appears from the facts narrated in this application, the opposite party, which is a public limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement in Orissa. It has its registered office and factory at Ampavalli village under Pottangi Tahasil in the district of Koraput and sales office at Berhampur and Bhubaneswar. The plaintiff-petitioner was appointed as a distributor of the opposite party for which she had deposited Rs.10 lakhs with the opposite party which was acknowledged by the opposite party and an agreement was entered into between the parties. The further case of the plaintiff petitioner is that subsequently the opposite party failed to perform his part of the agreement and supply cement, that too suspended the distributorship of the petitioner. For the above cause of action the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of loss and damages against the opposite party.