The court affirmed that jurisdiction may arise where a partial cause of action occurs, allowing amendments to aid jurisdictional clarity in the interest of justice.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner before this Court, in Writ Petition No.53076 of 2018 connected with Writ Petition No.53075 of 2018, is seeking to quash the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC and I.A No.5 filed Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC respectively, in O.S.No.1242/2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Mangaluru.

2. The Petitioners 1 to 9 were defendants No.1 to 9 and Respondents 1 to 5 were Plaintiffs No.1 to 5 before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are follows:

The Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1242/2018 before the trial court for the declaration to declare the defendants are not authorized or empowered to deny entry to the children of the plaintiffs and of the persons represented by the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule Madrasa and consequently restrain the defendants from obstructing the children of plaintiffs in any manner without following the due procedure under the law or the procedure under the bye law approved by the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, Bangalore. Further seeking the declare to declare that the defendants are not authorized or empowered to make any changes or alterations to the name or names of the plaint schedule institutions and consequently restrain defendants from invoking, implementing or enforcing any name except the name Badriya Jumma Masjid and Al-Madrasthul Badriya as founded in the Certificate of Registration dated 23.12.1994 bearing No. KWB/REG/14/DKD/94-95 issued by the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, Bangalore.

4. Further, it was also prayed for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to hold General Body Meeting of the Plaint Schedule Institution to conduct election to elect a new Managing Committee (Mutawalli) to administer and manage the plaint schedule institutions and draft bye-laws to the plaint schedule institutions.

5. The Defendants, even before filing of the written statement, filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order VII Rule 10 read with read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC and contended that the territorial Jurisdiction over the matter lies with the jurisdictional Court at Mudabidri by relying upon the notifications dated 14.10.2004 and 27.11.2004 (Annexure-D). In the meanwhile Plaintiffs filed I.A. No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VII Rule 1 and 4 read with Order I Rule 8 of CPC, 6. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application I.A.No.5 filed by defendants and allowed I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached before this Court by way of the afore-numbered two writ petitions.

7. Heard Counsels for both the sides.

8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the notifications dated 14.10.2004 and 27.11.2004, the court below does not itself get the territorial jurisdiction. It was further contended that the court below considering the Territorial Jurisdiction, ought to have returned the pliant.

9. It was also contended that, the reason given by the court below that the defendant No.1 is a registered Waqf Board at Mangalore and as such gets jurisdiction on the ground that the part of reliefs claimed under Section 20(c) of C.P.C is not correct and it was further contended that the other reasons have not been cogently assigned.

10. Another contention that was raised was the reason of the trial court that the causes of Action can be joined in certain cases shows that the court itself had doubts in its mind and therefore, needs interference of this court.

11. It was contended that the Court below is not justified in allowing the application especially when