Territorial jurisdiction in civil matters is determined by the location of the cause of action, and a court lacking jurisdiction must return the plaint for presentation to an appropriate court instead of rejecting it.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant in Original Suit No. 244 of 2018 (K.P. Pankaj @ Keshav Prasad Pankaj vs. Chairman, District Urban Development Authority, Kushinagar and others) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur, whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that, as per the terms of the tender, the disputes were to be adjudicated by the competent court at Kushinagar, whereas the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Court at Gorakhpur, which was legally not maintainable.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that a tender was published by the defendants in local newspapers of Gorakhpur on 09.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 for the supply of construction materials for road construction. The plaintiff firm applied pursuant to the said tender which was accepted, and consequently, 13 work orders were awarded to the plaintiff from time to time. On 30.06.2014, the defendants awarded a work order to the plaintiff for the supply of certain construction materials, valued at Rs.22.31 lakhs.

4. In pursuance of the said work order, the plaintiff firm supplied the construction materials to the defendants strictly in accordance with the terms of the work order.

5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that a contract was not duly executed between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the said work order, and that, from time to time, the plaintiff firm supplied the construction materials in due fulfillment of the obligations arising out of the work order, so awarded.

6. It was further averred that a payment of Rs. 85.94 lakhs was required to be made to the plaintiff firm by defendant no. 1, but only an amount of Rs.18,54,155/- was paid. Hence, a dispute arose as the defendants failed to pay an amount of Rs. 67,39,845/- towards the construction material supplied by the plaintiff firm in pursuance of work orders awarded to it from time to time. The plaintiff firm claimed that it was also entitled to compound interest at the rate of 18% quarterly on the said outstanding amount. It was further alleged that Mr. P.K. Gupta, acting on behalf of defendant no. 4, demanded a commission of 25%, and since the said commission was not paid, the aforesaid amount was wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff firm.

7. Ultimately, when the amount due to the plaintiff was not paid by the defendants, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of declaration that they are entitled to get an amount of Rs.67,39,845/- along with 18% quarterly interest from the defendants.

8. During the pendency of the suit, an application no.19-A under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant nos. 4 to 6 on the ground that the plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.67,39,845/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per month. It was averred that the defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 are working in official capacity in District Kushinagar, whereas defendant no.2 is a Government Officer working in Lucknow and defendant nos. 5 and 6 are residents of District Kushinagar. It was averred that defendant no.3 has awarded work orders to the plaintiff, from his office situated in Collectorate, at District Kushinagar and the construction material was also to be supplied in Nagar Panchayat, Hata, District Kushinagar and the cheque paying for the aforesaid material supplied by the plaintiff, was also issued by the above of