BAJRANGLAL GUPTA Vs. BHARATI AIRTEL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 23.9.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ist Court, Cuttack in C.S.No.39 of 2007. By the said order, the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. and held that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and simultaneously directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly and pay the proper court fees.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S.No.39 of 2007 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ist Court, Cuttack for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and certain ancillary releifs impleading the opposite party as defendant. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. While the matter stood thus, the defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. to decide the question of jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue. It is stated that by virtue of Clause 27 of the Agreement dated 21st August, 2004, the Courts at Bhubaneswar only be the competent Court of jurisdiction in case of any dispute that may arise from out of the said agreement. Further, the plaint has not been properly valued and the Court fees have not been paid. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. It is stated that the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law and the same cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The plaintiff has never agreed to submit the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhubaneswar. The agreement is oppressive and unfair. Further the Court at Bhubaneswar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the said court. By order dated 23.9.2009 the learned trial court came to hold that in view of the agreement between the parties, the competent Court at Bhubaneswar has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Simultaneously the learned trial court directed the plaintiff to value the suit properly and pay the proper court fees.

(3.) Heard Mr.Gopal Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Harisankar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.