( 1 ) THE petitioner is first defendant in O. S No. 167 of 2001. The first respondent herein filed the suit being os No 167 of 2001 on the file of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for direction to the second respondent herein to pay the emoluments accrued in favour of one Syed Hussain and for other reliefs the petitioner herein filed interlocutory application being I. A. No. 490 of 2002 under Order XIV Rule 2 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CP. C) praying the trial court to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. By impugned order, dated 31-7-2002, the trial court dismissed the application. This civil revision petition is filed against the said order.

( 2 ) SYED Hussain was a Senior Goods driver in South Central Railway, the second respondent herein. He died on 10-8-1999. According to the first respondent, Syed hussain married her and therefore she alone is entitled for retiral benefits of her husband and hence the suit. In her application, the petitioner pleaded that Syed hussain was resident of Nagireddipalle village, Nandalur Mandal of Kadapa District, that the marriage between the petitioner and Syed Hussain was performed at nagireddipalle Village, where they live together, that Syed Hussain later married the first respondent - plaintiff and that after death of Syed Hussain on 10-8-1999, his obsequies was performed at Nagireddipalle only where he was buried. The petitioner also claimed that after the death of her husband, she shifted to Rajampet, wherein she is residing. She contended that the court at Tirupati has no jurisdiction as Syed hussain never lived within the territorial jurisdiction of Tirupati Court. The application was opposed by the first respondent herein. After considering the rival contentions, the trial Court rejected the application on two grounds. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the preliminary issue being mixed question of fact and law, the same cannot be determined unless the evidence is let in. Secondly, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the headquarters of the second respondent, namely, Senior divisional Personal Officer, South Central railway, is situated at Renigunta and therefore the suit at Tirupati is maintainable.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously relies on Section 20 of c. P. C. , and submits that Syed Hussain, a native of Nagireddipalle married at nagireddipalle, that the Headquarters of second respondent is situated at Guntakal and that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the tirupati Court. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that as the first respondent is residing in renigunta and the offices of the Railways are situated at Renigunta, the Tirupati Court has jurisdiction.

( 4 ) PART I of C. P. C. , (Sections 9 to 25) deal with inter alia "jurisdiction of the courts". Section 15 lays down that "every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it". The ordinary jurisdiction of each subordinate Court - District Court, Senior Civil Judge Court and Junior Civil Judge Court; is decided by the Legislature, which, in the case of state of Andhra Pradesh, is A. P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1989. When the Courts are constituted for a definite area conferring the pecuniary jurisdiction giving Court the jurisdiction over suits of a particular value or of subject-matter, any suit presented to a Court without pecuniary territorial jurisdiction, any adjudication and decision thereon by such incompetent Court would be void. As per Order IV Rule 1 (2) of c. P. C. , every plaint shall have to comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, and unless such compliance is satisfied, the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted. That is the reason why the law provides for rejection of the plaint when it is presented to a Court devoid of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. As per order VII Rule 10 CPC, it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document