C.K. Thakker, C J. (Oral):- Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.l is the original plaintiff and is contesting respondent. No effective relief is claimed by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In fact, they are proforma respondents original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the suit. He, therefore, prays that names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be permitted to be delted from the array of the parties. Prayer granted, names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ordered to be delted from the array of the parties. Respondent No. 1 will now is the sole respondent. Necessary correction be made in the cause title.

2. Admitted Mr. Ramakant Sharma appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf the respondent. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner, original defendant No.2, in Civil Suit No. 159 of 2000 and CM. A. No. 172 of 2000, pending in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class (II), Nurpur, District Kangra, against respondent No. 1, original plaintiff. Her prayer is to quash and set aside all actions taken by the Court in Civil Suit No. 159 of 2000 as also CMA No. 172 of 2000.

4. Respondent No. 1 - plaintiff was working as Junior Librarian in Army School, Kandrori. On April 7, 2000, she filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and defendant Nos. 1 and 3. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that the said suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff on June 26,2000. On June 28, 2000, another suit, being Civil Suit No. 159 of 2000 (present suit) was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration and consequential relief’s. Along with the plaint, an application, (CMA No. 172 of 2000) was also filed under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 ad 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for temporary injunction. It was stated in the application that the defendants were threatening the plaintiff that they would not allow her to work as Junior Librarian in Army School, Kandrori. She, therefore, prayed for the grant of ex-parte and interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in performing her duties as Junior Librarian in the Army School, Kandrori, and further restraining them from with-holding any of the benefits to the applicant. On June 28,2000, the Court granted ex- parte and interim injunction. They were further restrained from with- holding benefits to the applicant as Junior Librarian, such as salary, etc. till next date of hearing. Notice was made returnable on August 1,2000, at 10.00 A.M.

5. On the returnable date i.e. August 1,2000, the petitioner (defendant No.2) submitted a reply raising preliminary objections as well as objections on merits. In paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections, it was stated; "3. Territorial Jurisdiction: The honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Respondent No.2 is situated at Nangal Bhur, Teh- Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. The registered address of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is false and fictitious and not complete. None of the respondents is located within the territorial jurisdiction of honourable court. The order of termination was served/communicated at Nanagal Bhur, District Gurdaspur. The cause of action accrued beyond the territorial jurisdiction of honourable court. Respondent No. 1 is located at New Delhi. Respondent No.3 comes under the technical and operational control of HQ Northern Command."

6. Similarly, another application was also filed under Order 6, Rule 14A of the Code for staying suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 3 wherein also it was mentioned by the petitioner (defendant No. 2) that the plaintiff with mala fide intention and ulterior motive had given wrong addresses of defendant Nos. 1 and 3. It was stated that defendant No. 1 was located at Delhi. It was also stated that Union of India was a nece