Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4639
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Mahabir Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
Sarabjeet Singh And Another - Respondent
CR No. 5291 of 2018(O&M)
Decided On : 11-12-2018
Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate with Ravinder Singh Rawal, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the location of the subject matter and the convenience of the defendants in determining the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure Code - [JURISDICTION] - [Section 16, Section 19, Section 20] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 16, Section 19, and Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code to determine the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages. The court emphasized that the convenience of the defendants and the location of the subject matter of the suit are crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the court. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing the cause of action and the determination of the falsity of the suit before claiming damages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration in Mohali, while the respondents filed a suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages in Rajpura, claiming mental agony and loss of reputation due to the petitioner's suit. The petitioner sought rejection of the respondents' suit based on jurisdictional grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages in Rajpura was not maintainable as the cause of action was dependent on the petitioner's suit in Mohali, and the determination of the falsity of the suit had not been established. The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction based on the location of the subject matter and the convenience of the defendants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages and the dependency of the cause of action on the petitioner's suit in Mohali.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 16, Section 19, and Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the importance of the location of the subject matter and the convenience of the defendants in determining jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, and allowed the revision petition, ruling that the suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages in Rajpura was not maintainable based on jurisdictional grounds.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J.(Oral) - Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed.
2. Petitioner No.1 filed a suit for declaration that he continues to be owner of LOI issued for the allotment of industrial plot measuring 1000 sq. yard for the draw of lots held by the GMADA in IT city against application form No.5309 with all proprietary rights on free hold basis and the order of transfer of the said LOI passed by GMADA through its Estate Officer in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in the said suit i.e. Sarabjeet Singh and his wife Harpreet Kaur is illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining defendants No.1 and 2 not to alienate or to deal with the property allotted against the said LOI in any manner. GMADA was also sought to be restrained not to grant any permission or to allot any plot in the name of defendants No.1 and 2 against the said LOI. The aforesaid suit is still pending in the Civil Court at Mohali.
3. Defendants No.1 and 2 of the aforesaid suit filed a suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages in the Civil Court at Rajpura on the ground that they have suffered mental agony, pain, suffering and loss of reputation due to filing of the aforesaid suit by the plaintiff/petitioner in the Court at Mohali. Para Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the aforesaid suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein are relevant to be quoted.
"10. That the plaintiffs are doctors by profession and they are specialist and are having great reputation in the locality and in the eyes of society and due to the above said act and conduct of the defendants, the plaintiffs have to suffer valuable time which was they have to spend on their profession.
11. That due to act of the defendants the reputation and personality of plaintiffs has been low down in the society. Even after the transfer of LOI, the defendants are threatening the plaintiffs and want to extract money from them by way of black-mailing and threatening and even filed a wrong and false suit in the Civil Court, Mohali. The defendants also threatening the plaintiffs to various means just to harass and extract money.
12. That the plaintiff is entitled for uncertain, un-liquidated on account of damage suffered by the defendants due to file false suit and, loss of work for last one year, loss of reputation in the eyes of general public, neighbours and relatives. The plaintiffs are not looking after their profession work properly due to the above said conduct of the defendants."
4. In the aforesaid suit for recovery, defendants/petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit filed by petitioner No.1 is still pending in the Civil Court at Mohali. No cause of action accrues in favour of the plaintiffs to file suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages on account of mental agony, pain and suffering in the Court at Rajpura. The filing of the suit at Rajpura is hit by sections 16 and 20 CPC and the Court at Rajpura has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.
5. The application was contested by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that all the payments were made through cheque/RTGS/cash by the plaintiffs to the defendants at Rajpura, therefore, the Court at Rajpura has got the jurisdiction as the documents regarding transfer of plot are legally registered at Rajpura.
6. By referring to section 19 CPC, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of an
