1. Heard Shri R.G Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.M. Singbal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellant had no territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.

4. The above Second Appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 7/09/2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.46/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 31/12/2010 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.54/2010 was quashed and set aside.

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit for recovery and for possession of some movable assets. The said suit was filed on the basis of an agreement which was executed between the appellant and the respondent. In view of the default committed by the respondent, the suit came to be filed for recovery of money as well as for restoration of the movable assets. It was the contention of the appellant that the said movable assets were in a structure located at Canacona. Accordingly, the suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Canacona.

6. The respondent opposed the said suit by denying the claim put forward by the appellant. The respondent disputed their obligation to pay any amount or to hand over possession of any such movable assets. An objection was also raised by the respondent to the effect that the suit at Canacona lacked territorial jurisdiction, as according to the respondent, such suit ought to have been filed in Panjim.

7. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona by judgment and decree dated 31/12/2010 after framing the issues decreed the suit filed by the appellant. While disposing the said suit the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Canacona Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the respondent preferred the said Regular Civil Appeal No.46/2011 before the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao. In the said appeal, a contention was also raised by the respondent that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was without jurisdiction as it was lacking territorial jurisdiction and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7/09/2012 considered the objection with regard to jurisdiction raised by the respondent and came to the conclusion that Canacona Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, consequently, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Whilst passing the impugned judgment the merits of the rival contention of the parties was not at all considered. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred the above Second Appeal.

8. Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions challenging the impugned judgment. His first contention is that on going through the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code when an objection with regard to jurisdiction is considered by the appellate Court three considerations are to be satisfied. The first is that such objection is to be raised in the court at the first instance. The second is that such objection is to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the third is that there has to be a consequent failure of justice. The learned Counsel further points out that on perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court though the first two contentions have been satisfied, nevertheless there is nothing on record to suggest that there