SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 239

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Talati Kantilal Bhurabai and another, Appellants
Versus
Lalitaben, Respondent.
Civil appeal no.292 of 1974,
D/- 26-7-1977.

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Jurisdiction to entertain and decide - Question of jurisdiction - Court on preliminary point holding that civil Judge Senior Division has jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit filed by respondent - Setting aside finding Civil Judge that he had no jurisdiction to entertain suit and therefore plaint must be returned for presentation to proper Court High Court has remanded suit to trial Court with direction to determine other issues raised in suit in light of evidence on record and in accordance with law - In view of fact that entire evidence in case has been recorded by trial Court and considering that nine years have already passed over decision preliminary point Court are opinion that it is undesirable to dispose of this matter piecemeal - Interests of justice require peremptorily that trial Court should proceed to dispose of suit on issues which it has not yet decided – Held, Court must however clarify that dismissal of this appeal will not preclude appellants from raising question of jurisdiction or any other question which has been concluded by judgment High courting any appeal which appellants may file in this court hereafter - If suit is dismissed there will be no occasion for appellants to challenge finding on question whether amount had been kept by respondent with appellants by way of deposit or was in nature of loan or on question of jurisdiction - On other hand if suit is decreed appellants have statutory right to challenge decree of trial Court by filing an appeal in High Court - But since High Court has already decided preliminary question of jurisdiction appellants cannot be allowed to reopen that question in appeal before High Court - Question of jurisdiction must be treated as finally concluded so far trial court and High court are concerned – Court however appellants fail in High Court it would be open to them by filing an appeal in this Court to challenge decree of High Court on all points decided against them including points decided by High Court by its judgment dated March - In other words so far as this Court is concerned question of jurisdiction must be treated as open despite dismissal of this appeal - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. - This is an appeal from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated March 5, 1973 on a preliminary point, holding that the civil Judge (Senior Division), Godhra has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit filed by the respondent. Setting aside the finding of the learned Civil Judge that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore the plaint must be returned for presentation to the proper Court the High Court has remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to determine the "other issues" raised in the suit in the light of the evidence on record and in accordance with law.

2. In view of the fact that the entire evidence in the case has been recordedby the trial Court and considering that nine years have already passed over the decision of a preliminary point, we are of the opinion that it is undesirable to dispose of this matter piecemeal. The interests of justice require premptorily that the trial Court should proceed to dispose of the suit on the issues which it has not yet decided.

3. We,therefore, confirm the order of remand passed by the High court and dismiss the appeal with costs.

4. We must, however, clarify that the dismissal of this appeal will not preclude the appellants from raising the question of jurisdiction or any other question which has been concluded by the judgment of the the High court, in any appeal which the appelllants may file in this court hereafter. If the suit is dismissed, there will be no occasion for the appellants to challenge the finding on the question whether the amount had been kept by the respondent with the appellants by way of deposit or was in the nature of a loan or on the question of jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the suit is decreed, appellants have a statutory right to challenge the decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal in the High Court. But since the Hight Court has alreadly decided the preliminary question of juridiction, the appellants cannot be allowed to reopen that question in the appeal before the High Cout. The question of jurisdiction must be treated as finally concluded so far the trial court and the High court are concerned. If, however, the appellats fail in the High Court, it would be open to them, by filing an appeal in this Court, to hallenge the decree of the High Court on all points decided against them including the points decided by the High Court by its judgment dated March 5, 1973. In other words, so far as this Court I is concernced, the question of jurisdiction must be treated as open, despite the dismissal of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1977 SC 2133

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top