SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ori) 69

High Court Of Orissa
B. K. BEHERA, P. C. MISRA
MADHABANANDA RAY - Appellant
Versus
M/S.SPENCER AND CO.LTD. - Respondent
CIV. REVN.  208  Of  1981
Decided On : 05/01/1987

Advocates Appeared:
A.B.MISHRA, B.L.N.SWAMY, P.N.MOHAPATRA, S.K.PATNAIK

Under the amended Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has the discretion to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law in force.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 14, RULE 2 - JURISDICTION - PRELIMINARY ISSUE - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The defendants in a suit for recovery of money filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and alleging that the goods were delivered to a third party as per the telephonic instructions of the plaintiff. They also contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as per the consignment note. The trial Court framed an issue on the question of jurisdiction and a petition was filed by the defendants to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that under the amended Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has the discretion to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law in force. The Court further held that an issue of fact or a mixed question of fact and law cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.

Issues: 1. Whether the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court should be taken up for hearing as a preliminary issue? 2. Interpretation of the amended Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could be taken up for hearing as a preliminary issue only if it was a pure issue of law and did not require any evidence to be recorded. 2. The Court interpreted the amended Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to mean that the Court has the discretion to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law in force. The Court further held that an issue of fact or a mixed question of fact and law cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.

Final Decision: The Court answered the reference made to it by holding that the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could be taken up for hearing as a preliminary issue only if it was a pure issue of law and did not require any evidence to be recorded.

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants in O. S. No. 86 of 1977-III of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, are the petitioners in this revision. The present opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for realisation of Rs. 20,885. 70 paise from the defendants towards the value of the consignment and interest thereof on the allegation that the goods in those consignment were misappropriated by them. The present petitioners filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and alleging that the goods were delivered to M/s. Panda Medical Hall, Jajpur as per the telephonic instructions of the plaintiff. It was further alleged in the written statement that as per condition No. 17 embodied in the consignment note all the disputes relating to the consignment were subject to the jurisdiction of the Court at Cuttack and, therefore, the Court at Bhubaneswar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Issues were framed by the trial Court, one of which was "has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit" ? A petition was filed on 2-12-80 on behalf of the defendants to decide the said issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue instead of deferring the same to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit as the said question goes to the root of the matter and in the event the Court ultimately decides at the hearing that the Court at Bhubaneswar has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, all the evidence adduced, expenses incurred and time consumed in this process of hearing of the suit shall be rendered futile. This revision was placed before a learned single Judge of this Court, who, by order 10-8-1984, referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench as the learned Judge was of the view that there are apparent conflicts in the single Judge decisions of this Court specific reference of which has been made in the order. This is how we have been called upon to analyse the position of law touching the question.

( 2 ) THE sole question to be decided in this revision is whether the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court should be taken up for hearing as a preliminary issue. It is relevant in this connection to note the provisions of law governing the subject. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. has now been substituted by Act 104 of 1976. Former R. 2 was as follows :-"2. Issues of law and of fact :- Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. "the substituted R. 2 after the aforesaid amendment which has taken effect from 1-2-1977 reads as follows:"r. 2. Court to pronounce judgement on all issues :- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may he disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-r. (2), pronounce judgement on all issues. " (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. "thus sub-r. (1) of the present. R. 2 clearly provides :"notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue the Court shall subject to the provision of sub-r. (2) pronounce judgement on all issues. Sub-r. (2) corresponds to the old R. 2 except for the provision that issue of law to be tried as a preliminary issue must now relate to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top