Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
HDFC Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Archana w/o Sachin Dongre – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 04 OF 2026
Decided on : 06-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. supreme court upholds exclusive mumbai jurisdiction clause (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. exceptions to res judicata for jurisdiction errors, law changes (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. procedural jurisdiction defects not nullities, binding unless set aside (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. prior final territorial order operates as res judicata (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. mathura prasad exceptions: inherent jurisdiction, different causes (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. res judicata fundamental; exceptions for new causes of action (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. same cause precludes relitigation despite subsequent law change (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. contract excludes territorial, not inherent jurisdiction (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. second jurisdiction application barred; revision dismissed (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
1) The present Civil Revision Application is filed in order to challenge order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned 26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on application at Exhibit 49 in Special Civil Suit No.347 of 2017.
2) The applicants are defendants in the said suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration, restoration of service and claim for damages in view of termination of her services by the applicants on 28.02.2017. The plaintiff was working with the defendants as Relationship Manager at Nagpur. She filed the aforesaid suit at Nagpur contending that cause of action for filing the suit arose at Nagpur. Averments regarding territorial jurisdiction are made in paragraph 22 of the plaint, which reads as under:-
“The plaintiff states that her interview was conducted at Nagpur. Her appointment letter also points out the place at Nagpur. The entire work was done at Nagpur. The plaintiff further states that the defendants are residing at Nagpur. Similarly, the plaintiff all throughout worked at Nagpur. The entire communications were done by the plaintiff at Nagpur and her performance were reviewed at Nagpur. Likewise, the termination letter was also issued at Nagpur. Thus, in such facts and circumstances the entire cause of action was at Nagpur and hence this Hon’ble Court has proper jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant case for its proper adjudication and justice.”
3) The plaintiff was appointed in service vide appointment order dated 06.12.2013. The appointment order provides that any dispute in relation to the employment of the plaintiff will be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Mumbai.
4) The defendants had filed an application vide Exhibit-9 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, the CPC) contending that the learned Trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of the clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon Courts at Mumbai.
5) The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2018. The learned Trial Court has observed that the entire cause of action had arisen at Nagpur and the defendants also had a branch office at Nagpur and therefore Courts at Mumbai did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Trial Court referred to the settled legal position that although parties may restrict jurisdiction to one of two Courts, when both the Courts have the jurisdiction, they cannot by contract confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise is not vested with it.
6) Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants challenged the same before this Court in Civil Revision Application No.81 of 2018. The Civil Revision Application came to be rejected vide judgment dated 16.08.2018 on the same ground, i.e., the Courts at Mumbai did not have jurisdiction and therefore by way of agreement, jurisdiction could not be conferred.
7) The present applicant filed application for review, being MCA No.967 of 2018 which came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2008.
8) After the review was rejected, a sim
AI
Prior final orders on territorial jurisdiction operate as res judicata in same suit, barring fresh challenges via subsequent superior court judgments on identical clauses; procedural defects bind unl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress.
The validity of the jurisdiction clause in an agreement and the determination of cause of action based on the place of goods supply and payment location.
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
Dismissal of a suit for a technical or formal defect or for non-compliance with a condition precedent does not constitute a bar to a subsequent suit.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
The court found that the application by the landlord for possession was not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues established under the tenancy law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
