A court has jurisdiction to try an issue of law relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, and if a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Soumen Sen, J.:–– The territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in receiving and trying the suit filed by the plaintiff is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application.

2. The plaintiff claims to be the holder of 1000 Equity shares in the defendant company. The plaintiff further claimed that consequent thereupon 600 bonus shares were issued and recorded in their favour but the original 1000 Equity shares sent for transfer in the month of April, 1997 were not received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also received dividends. On complaints being made by the plaintiff regarding non-receipt of 1000 shares, the defendant No.1 company forwarded photocopies of alleged transfer deeds purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Ashvin M. Shah. The plaintiff soon thereafter denied such claim and demanded return of such shares from Ashvin M. Shah being the opposite party No.2 in this proceeding. In respect of 300 shares, the defendant No.1 company agreed to issue duplicate share certificates provided certain obligations being fulfilled by the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied having sold any such shares in favour of any third party and required the defendant company to produce and deliver the said thousand shares which, however, the defendant No.1 had failed to perform. In this background, the suit for declaration claiming ownership over 1000 Equity shares and other reliefs has been filed.

3. In the proceeding, the company invited the Court to adjudicate the issue No.3 before deciding the other issues. The said issue No.3 is as follows:-

“Has this Court jurisdiction to try the instant suit.”

4. The said issue was heard on the basis of an application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grounds for deciding the said issue in favour of the defendant Company and against the plaintiff are as follows:-

(a). The registered office of the defendant No.1 is situated at Patiala Road, Nabha, Punjab and as such this learned Court does not have the jurisdiction to try and determine the present suit.

(b). The plaint does not disclose any cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this learned Court.

(c). Suits and other proceedings relating to shares should be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the registered office is situated.

5. Mr. S.P. Roychoudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial Judge should have decided the said issue upon evidence and not merely on the basis of the pleadings. It is argued that the trial Judge upon considering the evidence on record could have arrived at a finding that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Court and, accordingly, could have declined to entertain the said application by holding it to be premature. The learned trial Judge should have decided the said issue along with other issues after conclusion of trial and adducing of evidence by the parties instead of taking up the issue as to jurisdiction since it involves mixed question of law and fact. The trial Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in deciding the said issue conclusively.

6. In appreciating such submission, the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said provision is required to be considered.

7. In the application under Order XIV Rule II, the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:-

“(a). before framing other issues, the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Ld. Court to try, entertain and determine this suit be taken up.

(b). such further order or orders and/or directions be given as Your Honour may deem fit and proper.”

8. The petitioner invited the Court to decide the said issue on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. It was on the basis of such application, the Court was persuaded to consider the said issue No.3 and overruled the objection ra