VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dt. 05.11.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 213/2008, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the petitioner that no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, and therefore the said suit was not maintainable in the eye of the law. He has also submitted that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner without appreciating the fact that the telephone connection was given by the respondent at Kotputali and hence also trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma, for the respondent, however submitted that the Office of the respondent -defendant is situated at Jaipur and all actions for connection and disconnection, etc. are being taken at the Office at Jaipur, and therefore the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, which even otherwise was not maintainable under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking recovery of Rs. 17562/ - before the trial Court in respect of the telephone connection No. KOTP -22360. In the said suit the petitioner -defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 stating inter -alia that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the defendant being the residence of Kotputali. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner -defendant has not mentioned any of the grounds as contemplated in the Clauses of Rule 11 of order VII for the rejection of the plaint. It is settled legal position that the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 only on the grounds mentioned therein and not otherwise. The trial Court, therefore has rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to file an application before the trial Court requesting the Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. In view of the said submission, it is directed that if the petitioner makes such application for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue, the trial Court shall decide the said application in accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned order passed by it. With this observation, the present revision petition is dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.