The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 21.08.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019 in O.S.No.12 of 2015.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Defendants are the revision petitioners herein. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 before the learned Chief Justice, Puducherry, made over to the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, for recovery of money by an unpaid seller for goods sold and delivered. The sale of the goods is Pre-used MRI machine and based on which, the amount fell due and payable is a domestic sale.

3. Defendants have filed written statement disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and also raised the plea of limitation inter alia contended on merits. Trial has commenced. P.W.1 was examined in chief. At this juncture, the defendants have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.615 of 2019 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC to take up the jurisdiction issue as preliminary issue. The said application was dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants.

4. Ms.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.R.Meenal, would contend that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Puducherry Court and as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2007, only Mumbai Courts have jurisdiction to resolve any dispute between the parties and jurisdiction of other Courts are specifically excluded.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff made submissions in support of the order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. In the enquiry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019, no oral or documentary evidence has been filed before the trial Court.

8. The suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 was filed for recovery of money based on the ground that the defendants have purchased pre-owned MRI Medical System (MRP 7000) machine from the plaintiff viz., M/s.Emsons (Agencies) private limited company, which is carrying on business in sourcing, selling and servicing of medical equipments having branch office at Puducherry, wherein, the defendants have purchased machine and agreed to pay the cost as agreed and after delivery of equipment from Puducherry to Karnal, Haryana at the defendants’ site, had paid partly liquidation of their liability on various dates from 20.05.2008 to 05.08.2009 and subsequent to that, the defendants have failed to pay a sum of Rs.8,59,333/-, which is balance consideration, so far claiming the same, the suit for recovery was filed.

9. The main contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that they had pleaded about the lack of jurisdiction in detail setting out that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Puducherry Court and hence, prayed to take up the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue.

10. Per contra, the stand of the respondent/plaintiff is that merely because the registered office of a concern is situated in a particular place will not vest the Court at that place with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The supply was effected from the respondent’s office at Puducherry and invoice was raised from Puducherry and the statement of accounts are maintained within the jurisdiction of District Court at Puducherry and hence, the Additional District Judge at Puducherry, is vested with the jurisdiction to try and hear the matter and the question of the II Additional District Court at Puducherry taking up the jurisdiction issue, at the preliminary issue for jurisdiction does not arise to the extent of question of jurisdiction stands settled as for the submissions made herein and also for the reasons enunciated in the plain