LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-139

PARMOD SOOD Vs. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SOLAN

Decided On June 21, 2016
Parmod Sood Appellant
V/S
The Municipal Council, Solan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision is maintained by the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter called the plaintiff) assailing the order dated 22.10.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, in RBT No. 70-1 of 05/2000 titled Pramod Sood Vs. Municipal Council, Solan , whereby plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation before the Competent Court at Solan, to quash and set aside the impugned order.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,62,152.00, on account of the works executed relating to the renewal of different roads of the respondent/defendant (hereinafter called the defendant). Plaintiff had been issued several work orders for the execution of such works and had executed works worth Rs. 9,00,000.00 till June, 1998 and an amount of Rs. 5,76,000.00 had been paid to the plaintiff by the defendant whereas the balance amount of Rs. 3,24,000.00 had been withheld by the defendant on which plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% per annum from 1.7.1998 to the date of suit along with costs. It is averred that suit had initially been filed before the learned District Judge, Shimla, and an application under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code had been filed by the defendant for return of the plaint, which was dismissed, vide order dated 12.8.2002. It is further averred that after filing of the written statement by the defendant an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court had been raised by the defendant and a specific issue was framed on 21.5.2004. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 22.10.2009, has returned the plaint for its proper presentation to a Court at Solan.

(3.) In replication, contents of the written statement were denied and that of the plaint were reaffirmed. Also averred that the plaintiff is residing and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try and determine the suit.