LAWS(ORI)-1986-9-24

AJANTA ENTERPRISERS Vs. HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL LTD

Decided On September 01, 1986
AJANTA ENTERPRISERS Appellant
V/S
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under O.43, R.1(a), Civil Procedure Code, where direction for return of the plaint is assailed.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant is proprietor of a business concern at Cuttack. He entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1, a public limited company having its head office at Bombay, for being appointed as stockist and, distributor of some of the products of the latter. On account of termination of the contract after some period of its continuance, plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No. 1-Company and its officers for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and for recovery of Rs. 2,19,538/- with 17% interest per annum. In view of Cl. 7 of the agreement, the defendant No. 1 claimed that the Cuttack Court where the suit has been filed has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Clause 7 of the agreement reads as follows :-

(3.) A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff disclosed the clause in the agreement in the plaint itself and claimed that notwithstanding the same the Court at Cuttack would have jurisdiction. The plaint was admitted and the defendants appeared on being summoned. They took adjournments for about eight months to file their written statement where they took the plea of want of jurisdiction. The parties were heard under O.10, R.1, C.P.C. and Issues were settled in which Issue No. 4 was relating to jurisdiction. After giving opportunity to the parties to furnish list of witnesses and to summon them, the suit was posted for hearing to 26-2-1981. On the said date the defendants filed a petition for deciding the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. On that petition, the matter was posted to 26-3-1981 for hearing. Defendants took time on that date and on the next date. The matter was posted to 11-5-1981. On the prayer of both the parties, it was posted to 7-7-1981 on which date at the request of the lawyers of both parties it was posted to 23-7-1981 for hearing. Defendants did not move the petition on 23-7-1981 which was rejected and the suit was posted to 17-8-1981 for hearing. Plaintiff filed requisites for summoning witnesses. On 17-8-1981 defendants filed an application for adjournment to get opportunity to adduce evidence. The suit was posted to 9-9-1981 on which date the second petition for preliminary hearing of the Issue relating to jurisdiction was filed. After the hearing was deferred for about four years, it was at last heard and the impugned order was passed on 20th Aug., 1985. Thus, about six years after presentation of the plaint the plaint is being directed to be returned.