An appellate court should not dismiss a suit solely on the ground of jurisdiction without examining the case on merits, especially when the parties have appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, joined issues, and a judgment and decree has been passed.

P.K. Palli, J.-The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the defendant-respondents on the ground that the amount covered by the bills have not been paid to him. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 3-3-1994 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur which decision was challenged by way of appeal which came to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal of the defendant State vide the impunged Judgment and decree holding that the Court that passed the decree had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Admittedly, no decision on merits was given and hence this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff

3. Issue No. 4 was framed in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court. While deciding issue No. 4 a reference was made to the observations appearing under issue No. 3 that on the offer it was clearly stipulated that all disputes shall be referable to Jodhpur jurisdiction. It, thus, came to be accepted by the respondent State that they would be amenable to Jodhpur jurisdiction of the Court. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court under issue No. 4 that the printing work as per undisputed position was to be carried out at Jodhpur. The learned trial Court, thus, held under this issue that the Court at Jodhpur has jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence, the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff

4. Learned first appellate Court observed that the tenders were invited by the Respondent No. 3 at Marwar Junction (Pali) and the tenders were accepted there itself Therefore, no cause of action had arisen at Jodhpur. According to the first appellate Court, the printing on the offer (amenable to Jodhpur jurisdiction) was totally meaningless and that the printing could be done at any other place, that will not give the cause of action at Jodhpur. According to the learned Court, the Jodhpur Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and further an observation was made that the plaintiff in case he so desires can withdraw the suit according to law and procedure and if the law permits the same be filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In my opinion, the learned first appellate Court has committed an error while passing the impugned Judgment . The appeal has been disposed of solely on the ground of jurisdiction by holding that the Court at Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is too well known that when the parties appear and submit to the jurisdiction the Court, join issues and where after the Judgment and decree is passed, it shall not be open to any of the parties to the lis to object to the decree having been passed without jurisdiction. The matter relates to the territorial jurisdiction only. The learned trial Court discussed the pleadings, the evidence both oral as well as documentary placed by the parties on the record and after hearing the matter passed the Judgment and decree. The issue of jurisdiction was decided in the main Judgment itself The appellate Court should not have taken recourse to this type of short cut. The learned first appellate Court should have decided the matter of jurisdiction alone. The plaintiff completed and handed over the job entrusted to him and on the completion of the job the bills were handed over on 11-11-1986 and 14-11-1986 and it is said that in spite of assurance the amount covered by the bills was not paid. The plaintiff was, thus, forced to file the suit against the respondent-defendants. It was not proper for the learned first appellate Court to relegate the plaintiff back to square number one by allowing him to withdraw the suit if so permissible and file the same in a competent Court of jurisdiction and thereby asking for a de novo trial and then appeal. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure can advantageously be taken notice of Section 21 reads as under:-