RAM CHANDRA PRASAD TEWARI Vs. KAILASHPATI DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chapra against the petitioner as also against Opposite Party No. 2. THE latter, it seems never appeared in the suit or at any other stage and, therefore, in this judgment hereinafter the petitioner would be referred to as the defendant. According to the allegations in the twelfth paragraph of the plaint, the cause of action for the suit arose at Mohalla Salempur, Pergana Manjhi, P. S. Chapra Town, P. O. Chapra, District Saran where the agreement was entered into and the agreement deed was executed within the jurisdiction of the Chapra Court. This fact was denied by the defendant in his written statement and it was further pleaded that the Chapra Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendant was a resident of Supaul in the district of Saharsa as also because no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Chapra Court. According to the defendant's case in his written statement, the agreement had been entered into and executed at Supaul. During the pendency of the case in the Chapra Court, the parties filed a joint petition to refer the suit to arbitration. THE Court accepted the prayer for reference and accordingly the dispute between the parties in the suit was referred to arbitration. THE defendant acquiesced in the order of reference and appeared and put his case before the arbitrators. Ultimately, they gave an award and filed it in Court. THE petitioner raised various objections to the award. One of the objections which was pressed for a preliminary decision of the Court was that the Chapra Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, the reference to arbitration by that Court was void and the award given on such a reference was a nullity. This issue has been decided against the petitioner by the learned Subordinate Judge as a preliminary point in the case and the defendant has come up to this Court in revision against that order.

(2.) IN my opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a correct view of the law in this regard. It is clear, on reference to the pleadings of the parties in the suit that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Chapra Court. Its jurisdiction was challenged by pleading a question of fact by the defendant, namely, that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Chapra Court as the agreement had been executed at Supaul and nothing was to take place under the agreement within the jurisdiction of the Chapra Court. This point of jurisdiction depending upon the determination of this contentious question of fact between the parties, it is manifest, was given a go by by the defendant by joining in the petition to the Court asking it to make a reference to arbitration and further by taking part in the proceedings before the arbitrators. Thereafter, it is not open to the defendant to turn round and say that the Court has no jurisdiction or that the question of jurisdiction must be determined first by the Court on investigation of the disputed question of fact as to where the agreement was entered into and was executed.

(3.) IN my opinion, the present case is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Chapra Court and, therefore, is covered by the principles of law decided in Chowdhri Murtaza Hossein v. Mt. Bibi Bechunnissa, 3 INd App 209 (PC); Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Barh v. Dasrath Pandey, AIR 1940 Pat 406 and National Coal Co. Ltd. v. L. P. Dave, AIR 1956 Pat 294. I accordingly hold that the point has been rightly answered against the defendant by the learned Subordinate Judge. There is no merit in this application in revision which accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs.32.00