Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Swastik Complex Private Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Jabalpur) Limited
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1741 of 2020 (J); Decided on 2.11.2020
S.P. Rai for petitioner; Ms. Surabhi Nigam for respondent.
Headnote:
Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R.11 -- M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 -- S.2 (1) (i) -- petitioner / defendant raised objection about jurisdiction and deficit court fee -- Court below directed to examine whether aforesaid issues framed or not -- if not framed, Court below shall decide issues relating to (i) jurisdiction of Court and (ii) question of payment of court fee as preliminary issues. 2017 (3) JLJ 66 (FB) referred to. [Para 5
flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 11 && e-iz- ek/;LFke~ vfèkdj.k vfèkfu;e] 1983 && èkkjk 2 ¼1½ ¼>½ && ;kph@izfroknh us vfèkdkfjrk vkSj de U;k;ky; Qhl ds ckjs esa vkifÙk mBkbZ && fupys U;k;ky; dks ;g tk¡p djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd iwokZsä fook|d fojfpr fd, x, gSa ;k ugha && fojfpr ugha fd, x, gksa rks fupyk U;k;ky; ¼1½ U;k;ky; dh vfèkdkfjrk rFkk ¼2½ Qhl ds lank; ds iz'u ds laca/k eas fook|dksa dk izkjafHkd fook|dksa ds :i esa fofu'p; djsxkA 2017 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 66 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 5
ORDER
1. This petition filed under section 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 24.2.2020 (Annexure P/9), whereby application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is rejected by the Court below.
2. The main ground raised in the said application is that the plaintiff has filed the suit before a forum/ Court which has no jurisdiction. The agreement between the parties falls within the ambit of " works contract" as defined under section 2(1)(i) of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983 (Adhiniyam). During the course of hearing, Shri Rai informed that written statement has already been filed and apart from the aforesaid, objection relating to jurisdiction, petitioner has raised yet another objection regarding payment of deficit court fee. It is raised because on more than one agreement claim of plaintiff is based and that deficit court fee has been paid by the plaintiff.
3. Ms.Nigam did not dispute that written statement has already been filed by the petitioner/ defendant. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for both the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that Court below may be directed to frame additional issues ( if not already framed) relating to (i) question of jurisdiction of court below in entertaining the recovery suit in view of the provision of Adhiniyam which were interpreted by Full Bench of this Court in Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. [2017 (3) JLJ 66 (FB)]2017 (2) M.P.L.J. 681 (ii) whether theplaintiff has paid adequate court fee ?.
4. Learned counsel for parties submit that after framing additional issues (if required) the Court below may be directed to try the aforesaid issues as preliminary issues.
5. In view of the consensus arrived at, court below is directed to examine whether the aforesaid issues have been framed or not. If not framed, the said issues be framed in accordance with law. In view of the consensus arrived at, Court below shall decide the aforesaid two issues relating to (i) jurisdiction of Court in the light of provision of Adhiniyam. (ii) question of payment of court fee as preliminary issues.
6. The Court below shall proceed with suit (if it survives) only after deciding the said preliminary issues.
7. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, petition is disposed of.
