Modi, J.—This is a revision by the defendant against an order of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, dated the 8th September, 1954, deciding a preliminary issue as the jurisdiction against the defendant.

2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Bilasrai Mannalal in Ratangarh. The defendant is a firm which carries on business as commission agents in the name of Purushottam Das Samal Das in Kotah. The plaintiffs case briefly was that one of its partner Banshidhar went to Kotah on the 17th July, 1953, and placed certain orders for the purchase of rice, dhania, barley etc. which the defendant firm. Certain payments were made by means of hundies by the plaintiff to the defendant. Disputes then arose between the parties and the plaintiff eventually filed the suit, out of which the present revision arises for the recovery of a sum of Rs. l769/13/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh. The defendant in his jawabdava raised a number of please but the only plea which is relevant for the purpose of the present revision is that he raised an objection that the court at Ratangarh had no jurisdiction to enervation the present suit as the defendant admittedly lived in Kotah and, further, no cause of action whatever had arisen within the jurisdiction of that court and, therefore that court was not competent all to entertain this suit. The Civil Judge framed the following issue—

"was the suit within the jurisdiction of his court?"

and tried it is a preliminary issue. He came to the conclusion that ordinarily the suit should have been filed in the competent court at Kotah but further found that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court at Ranagarh and, therefore, he was competent to entertain the suit and in coming to that conclusion, he appears to have relied on a decision of this court in Ramlal vs. Ram Gopal (1). This revision has been preferred be the defendant against the above order. The contention is that the court below has misunderstood and misapplied the law enunciated in Ramlals case and that it has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and, therefore, the order of the Civil Judge is unsustainable in law and should be set aside.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite party, and that objection has been put in a two-fold manner. It has been vehemently argued that the present revision is incompetent as, firstly, it is barred by virtue of the provisions of sec. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and, secondly, it is also barred under sec. 115 C.P.C. and in the light of the decisions of this Court in Swaroopnarains case (2) and in Nagori Ibrahims case(3). I propose in this order to examine the preliminary objection only.

4. Talcing up the first part of the objection relating to sec. 21 C. P. C, that section reads as follows—

"No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."

It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice that when court has no jurisdiction over a litigation, its judgments and orders, howsoever correct otherwise, are nothing but a nullity and have no effect and may be declared to be void by any court in which they might come up for consideration. Sec.81 is an exception to this general rule, and it provides that on objection to the place of suing shall be of no avail in any appellate or revisional court unless certain conditions precedent are fulfilled, and these conditions are that the objection must have been taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and before the settlement of issues where issue are reaised and secondly, that there has been a consequent failure of justice. It is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the second cond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document