L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Tr. Civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the XIV additional Chief Judge-cum-Fast Track court, Hyderabad seeking transfer of the suit to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of rs. 24,59,000/- on the strength of various transactions. The second defendant filed written statement disputing the various assertions of the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by the second defendant is that several transactions referred to in the suit have taken place at Tarnaka, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Secunderabad and as such the court, in which the suit is pending, does not have the territorial jurisdiction. The trial of the suit is yet to commence.

( 3 ) SRI T. Surya Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the specific assertion on behalf of the principal contesting defendant as regards the territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner seeks transfer of suit to a Court, the territorial jurisdiction of which is beyond any pale of controversy. He also submits that such a course of action is permissible in view of specific provisions contained in subsection (5) of Section 24 C. P. C.

( 4 ) SRI K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the suit is presented in the Court where it is pending now, the question of transferring it on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction would, in fact, be a contradiction in terms. He submits that the suit was presented in the Court at Hyderabad on the specific plea that it had territorial jurisdiction and as long as the plaint is not amended suitably, it cannot be permitted to be transferred. He also contends that if the petitioner is accepting the plea of the defendants as to the territorial jurisdiction, it is always open for the Trial Court to return the plaint, in exercise of power under Rule 10 of Order 7 c. P. C.

( 5 ) THE suit pending on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad is sought to be transferred to a Court of equivalent jurisdiction in secunderabad. The suit was filed on the basis of various transactions which took place between the parties. In the relevant portion of the plaint, the petitioner asserted that the Court where the suit is presented has territorial jurisdiction. In para 7 of the written statement filed by the second defendant, it is pleaded that the alleged transactions have taken place at secunderabad and in that view of the matter the Court where the suit is filed does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 6 ) OF the three categories of jurisdictions viz. , territorial, pecuniary and the one relating to subject-matter, Sections 16 to 20 C. P. C. stipulate the factors to decide the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, for the purpose of filing a suit. Under section 21 C. P. C. , any objection as to territorial jurisdiction, is required to be taken at the earliest opportunity. It is, obviously, in exercise of this right that the second defendant raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed, by raising a specific plea in the written statement.

( 7 ) WHENEVER a doubt as to territorial jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit arises, two courses are open for the Court. Firstly, it can return the plaint to be presented in an appropriate Court. The stage of the suit for having recourse to this step is immaterial. The plaint can be returned at any stage (see Rule 10 of Order VII CPC ). This, however, is a step to be taken by the court on its own accord and not at the request of parties. The second course of action is to frame an issue as to whether the court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, if the parties raise an objection touching on this aspect. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document