IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of a civil suit under the Fatal Accident Act, 1885 and the territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of CPC.

ORDER :

1. Instant S.B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 06.03.2017 in Civil Suit No.46/2014 titled as “Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. Kishgarh Marble Udyog Vikas & Ors.” whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh had dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC preferred by petitioners who were arrayed as defendant nos. 7 and 8.

2. A civil suit under Section 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act, 1885 was filed by the legal representatives of Bhanwargopal Sharma to claim compensation on the ground that due to negligence in treatment of Bhanwargopal Sharma by defendant nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 8, Bhanwargopal Sharma died on 31.03.2014. The plaintiff respondent nos. 1 to 5 have claimed compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- from the defendants which includes defendant no.1 and defendant no.4.

3. During pendency of this civil suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by present petitioners, arrayed as defendant nos. 7 and 8 on the ground that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable under the Fatal Accident Act, 1885 and present petitioners have no relation with defendant nos. 1 to 6. Furthermore, the cause of action was not accrued in the jurisdiction of District Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer). The objection about the misjoinder of cause of action was also raised. Learned trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that partially cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of Kishangarh and partially in Jaipur, therefore, the suit is maintainable. Aggrieved from aforesaid, the instant revision petition is preferred before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the petitioners are indisputably carrying on business in the jurisdiction of Jaipur and they have no branch at Kishangarh, Ajmer and no suit can be filed against them in the jurisdiction of Kishangarh (Ajmer) for negligence in treatment. He also submitted that even from the statement of the plaintiffs, no treatment was given at Kishangarh by the petitioners, therefore, no cause of action has arisen against the petitioners and the trial court has erred in not allowing the application. He also submitted that in case of alleged medical negligence, the suit is not maintainable under the Fatal Accident Act before the Civil Court. He also submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that several cause of action were joined together and on the basis of which a civil suit was filed before the trial court, therefore, same is not maintainable. He specifically submitted that the Courts at Kishangarh (Ajmer) have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any subject matter wherein any cause of action has not arisen against the present petitioners within jurisdiction of trial court, as petitioners are having business at Jaipur, therefore, on grounds of misjoinder of cause of action and in absence of cause of action, the suit was filed and same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Sarjent S.S. Sheikhawat and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 50 and submitted that if the death took place in Jaipur, then suit cannot be filed at Kishangarh (Ajmer). He also relied upon judgment in case of Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) SC 334 and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137 and submitted that when the suit is barred by law and did not disclose any cause of action then same is required to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs) on the ground that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 is required to be disposed of only on the basis of averment in the plaint and not on the basis of defence raised by defendants. He also submitted that in case of accrual of continuous cause of action in di