The judgment emphasizes the importance of the place where the cause of action arises in determining territorial jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving pension regulations and disciplinary proceedings.

Anu Malhotra, J.

A revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner which has been treated as an appeal against the impugned order dated 02.09.2008 of the learned ADJ, Delhi in Suit No. 100/2007 in view of the order dated 25.05.2011 whereby it was held that in as much as the petition has been filed against the order of the learned Trial Court having been passed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby the plaint was returned to the plaintiff i.e. the present appellant to be presented to the Court having jurisdiction, it was not a revision petition but an appeal that could be filed and thus in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan And Others vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur And Others, (2009) 5 SCC 162 and referred vide para no. 48 in particular which reads as under:-

"If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfilment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out."

2. The petition directed to be treated as an appeal against the impugned order and was thus registered as FAO 280/2011.

3. The admitted facts germane for adjudication of the lis are to the effect that the appellant i.e. the plaintiff of the suit had joined as a clerk with the Union Bank of India on 12.04.1971 at the Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi and was promoted in December, 1978 as Scale-I Officer and as Scale-II Officer on 01.06.1998 and sought voluntary retirement, which was ultimately sanctioned on 20.04.2001 and thus retired on the said date. The appellant i.e. the plaintiff was receiving his pension regularly as was payable to him upto August, 2005, which pension was being reimbursed to the appellant i.e. the plaintiff from one of the branch offices of the defendant i.e. the respondent herein of the Union Bank of India at 63, 1st Floor, CSC-2, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085. As averred by the defendant i.e. the respondent herein through para-8 of the reply on merits to the plaint, the retiring employees were given an option to designate any of their bank accounts at any branch for the purpose of credit of the pension and the pension is thus credited to the account of the retiring employee.

4. A memo was issued on 10.01.2003 to the appellant i.e. the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant i.e. the respondent herein to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated for omissions and commissions, which constituted grave misconduct. The said show cause notice as submitted by the defendant i.e. the respondent herein was issued by the Assistant General Manager of the defendant i.e. the respondent herein as the Competent Authority under the Pension Regulations of the bank. A reply was submitted by the appellant i.e. the plaintiff to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 10.02.2003 and vide memo / show cause notice dated 15.03.2003 additional omissions and commissions were alleged against the appellant i.e. the plaintiff to which an explanation was submitted by him vide letter dated 07.04.2003 which the Assistant General Manager (IR) did not find convincing and charges were framed against the appellant i.e. the plaintiff vide Article of Charges dated 28.01.2005 and the appellant i.e. the plaintiff was proceeded under the provisions of Regulation 45 of the Union Bank of India (Employees) Pensions Regulations, 1995 and Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and vide memo dated 22.02.2005, the defendant i.e. the respondent herein decided to proceed further against the appellant i.e. the plaintiff vide a departmental inquiry and Sh. K.V. Subramanian, Senior