2003 PLP 1808 (YLR)

The main grievance expressed and plea taken before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the trial Court after holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction returned the plaint to the respondents/plain tiffs, therefore,, the decision was given on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction and in view of the provision of Order 41, rule 23, C.P.C. the learned Additional District Judge was neither justified nor he was within his lawful authority in deciding the case on merits by giving findings on all the issues involved and if he was of the view that Civil Court has jurisdiction, the only course open was to have remanded the case to the trial Court ford decision on merits and on all the issues. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that evidence on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal on merits, therefore, the learned Appellate Court has acted in accord with Order 41, rule 24, C.P.C. thus it has committed no illegality. Both the learned counsel for the parties thereafter addressed arguments on the point of jurisdiction alone and cited different case-law at the bar for and against. In the instant case the issue of jurisdiction is contentious one and is hotly contested by both the sides but both the parties to the suit decided to lead evidence on all the issues leaving the point of jurisdiction to be decided alongwith other issues at the conclusion of trial then in such circumstances the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, has become both a question of law and fact and can be decided only after the appraisal of, entire evidence led on this point which exercise cannot be taken up at revisional stage when both the learned Courts below have not taken care to attend to the said issue on the basis of evidence already recorded. However, being a complicated issue the question of jurisdiction is, therefore to be decided in view of universally acknowledged principle of law and justice and the ouster clause ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court is to be determined with reference to the evidence on record amongst other principles. The trial Court is required to decide the issue while keeping in view the following well settled principle of law:-- (i) Whether the principle of natural justice was followed by the authorities concerned while conducting the, proceedings and passing adverse orders to the interest of the parties to the suit. (ii) Whether the orders and proceedings challenged in the suit and defended by the other side were passed by the authorities concerned within ambit of its jurisdiction and lawful authority or not. (iii) Whether the said authorities while passing the order and/or the proceedings have acted in accord with law and have not violated any provision of law, rules and regulations which confer, define and regulate their own jurisdiction and authority in the matter. If the finding on the issue jurisdiction is given in the affirmative after complying with the above observations the trial Court may act according to requirements of Order 7, rule 10, C.P.C; However, if the answers regarding lack jurisdiction by the Civil Court is in the negative then the trial, Court shall pass a speaking, fair and elaborate judgment in accord with the requirements of Order 20, rule 5, C.P.C. As the case is fairly old enough, therefore, in the interest of justice the trial Court is directed to decide it positively within two months and inform the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in this regard. Parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 25-2-2003 and the record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith. The petition is accepted in the above terms with no; order as to costs. H.B.T./747/P Order accordingly.