SETHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Order XLI Rule 1(a) of CPC challenging the order dated 24.11.99 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 164/88, whereby the plaint has been ordered to be returned by the trial court for presentation to the proper court under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent -defendant seeking recovery of Rs. 1,00,140/ - towards the damages for the alleged breach of contract. It was alleged in the suit interalia that the tender filed by the appellant -plaintiff was accepted by the Superintending Engineer of the respondent -defendant at Kota and the letter of acceptance was also delivered by the plaintiff at Kota and, therefore, the contract was entered into between the parties at Kota. It was also alleged that thereafter the defendants had committed the breach of the contract and hence the suit was filed. The respondent -defendant had filed the written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and had also raised the contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the court at Kota. The trial court, from the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 11 issues, out of which issue No. 10 pertained to the question of jurisdiction.

(2.) IT appears that the trial court thereafter had recorded the evidence led by the parties. When the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the defendant had filed an application for deciding the issue No. 10 as a preliminary issue. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties held that the court at Kota did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and the court at Baran had the jurisdiction. The trial court therefore returned the plaint of the plaintiff for the presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction, vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Government Counsel Mr. Hari Barath for the respondent has submitted that the question of jurisdiction being pure question of law, and from the evidence of the parties also it appeared that the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Baran, where the work was to be executed and, therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference.