JUDGMENT:- The Defendant's Notice of Motion is for determining the preliminary issue regarding inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The application is shown to be taken out under Order 14, Rules 1 & 2 r.w. Sections 9-A and 151 of the C.P.C. The written statement is not filed. Hence Order 14 cannot be invoked. No interim application is taken out by the Plaintiff. Hence Section 9-A cannot be invoked. However the issue of jurisdiction is required to be tried since it is the Defendant's case that the Civil Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred under Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (Telecom Act).

2. In essence what would have to be determined is whether this Court has jurisdiction to proceed with and try this Suit. If the Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred it would be in the interest of both the parties that the Suit be filed in the Court having competent jurisdiction rather than the Suit be simplicitor kept on the files of this Court until after the written statement is filed and the issues framed.

Under Order 7, Rule lied) of the C.P.C. the question relating to the bar created by any law would be required to be seen by the Court upon the averments in the plaint and if the Suit is barred the plaint itself has to be rejected.

3. The purpose and object of all these Sections as also the action required to be taken is essentially the same if the Suit is barred by any law the plaint itself can be rejected, the jurisdiction of the Court can be considered pending the interim application and/or the issue with regard to the bar be tried as a preliminary issue; the Suit need not be kept pending.

4. It may be mentioned that the wording of Order 7, Rule 11 is in the passive voice. The plaint is liable to be rejected in the cases enumerated under that rule. The rule, therefore, does not require essentially any application to be made by any party. The Court itself can reject the plaint if anyone of the six cases enumerated in the said rule is seen.

5. Consequently, the application by way of a Notice of Motion titled "application for raising preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of this Court" can be considered under any of the aforesaid provisions to meet the object and purpose of the provision, its title in the affidavit in support of the Notice of I Motion notwithstanding.

6. It may at once be stated that Mr. Dwarkadas drew my attention to my order in an application taken out in Suit No.3091/2008.

In that case the Plaintiff took out an interim application for certain interim reliefs. Some of the Defendants took out another application for determining the issue of limitation as a jurisdictional issue under Section 9-A of the C.P.C. The Plaintiff withdrew the interim application. The application under Section 9-A technically would not survive because that issue was to be decided as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. It would, therefore, essentially be decided pending the decision on the interim application taken out by the Plaintiff and even before that application is decided. Hence the application under Section 9-A was observed not to have survived. However in that case another Notice of Motion for rejection of the plaint as being barred by the law of limitation under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was also taken out. In view thereof the application under Section 9A, which is essentially for the same relief, was not seriously pressed. In this case no application for interim relief is taken out. No written statement is filed. Upon the Suit as filed, a plea that the Court's inherent jurisdiction is barred under Sections 15 & 27 of the Telecom Act is raised. Essentially, therefore, the issue relating to the jurisdiction of this Court has to be determined. That would be the preliminary issue. For want of written statement in essence the Court would have to consider whether or not to reject the plaint itself under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. The app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document