(1.) The suit of the appellant for permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court. One of the defences raised was that the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Patiala, had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, which was rejected. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding on the question of jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff came up in the Second Appeal which was admitted to D.B. at the Motion stage.
(2.) In Firm Chhelu Mal Hari Ram and others v. Firm Mangtu Ram Devki Nandan and others, 1972 AIR(P&H) 401, it was held that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be reversed on the question of territorial jurisdiction without recording a finding that there had been a failure of justice. Although the provisions of Section 21(3), Civil Procedure Code are quite clear in this regard, but probably the learned single Judge at the Motion stage doubted the correctness of the said decision and admitted the case to D.B. The matter now stands concluded by the High Court of the Supreme Court in Pathumma v. Kuntalan Kutty, 1981 AIR(SC) 1683, and the view taken in Firm Chhelu Mal Hari Ram's case has been upheld.
(3.) In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge did not record any finding as to the failure of justice and set aside the judgment of the trial Court after reversing the finding on the question of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from patent illegality and is accordingly set aside with costs. The case would now go back to the District Judge, Patiala, for rehearing and passing a fresh judgment in the light of the observations made above. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the lower Appellate Court on 2nd April, 1986.