BAJRANG METALLICS LTD. Vs. SHIVOM MINERALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in C.S. No. 166 of 2008 has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the C.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 1.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela directing him to take return of the plaint for its presentation in proper Court.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the suit relevant for proper adjudication of the case is that C.S. No. 166 of 2008 was filed with a prayer to pass a decree of Rs. 18,05,332.21 paise, pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ - per day for illegal occupation of the plant premises of the plaintiff by the defendant and not removing its iron ore materials and for mandatory injunction along with cost of the suit. The plaintiff and defendant are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. By virtue of the agreement executed between the parties on 2.1.2005, the defendant took the crushing plant of the plaintiff on hire for a period from 1.1.2005 to 30.11.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 1,43,00,000/ -. The defendant -company had paid 11 postdated cheques each for Rs. 13,00,000/ -. On expiry of the period agreed upon, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue the business for a further period of two months on the said terms and conditions for a consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/ -. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant should pay the electricity charges during the aforesaid period. On expiry of the extended period of agreement, i.e. on 1.2.2005, the defendant -company failed to remove the iron ore materials, structures and machineries installed by them within thirty days. He turned deaf ear to the repeated requests of the plaintiff for removal of the aforesaid materials. The defendant also did not pay the consideration amount of Rs. 26,00,000/ - as well as electricity charges etc. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. The learned trial court for the sake of convenience took up Issue Nos. 1 and 3 for adjudication and held that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the plaintiff to take return of the plaint to be presented before the competent court. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 are as follows: