THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3234 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ongole in I.A.No.57 of 2025 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 dated 16.09.2025.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, O.S.No.31 of 2024 is filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.67,31,303/- from the petitioner herein/defendant basing upon a promissory note and claiming further interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein/respondent filed I.A.No.57 of 2025 under Order 14 Rule 2(2)(a) C.P.C stating that the Court did not frame additional issues viz., “the discharge plea taken on behalf of the petitioner herein/defendant in the written statement” and “whether the Court is having territorial jurisdiction to conduct trial in the present case or not?”.

4. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed counter affidavit in I.A.No.57 of 2025 stating that the petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner herein did not take any plea in his written statement regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court in the suit, as such, he filed petition as vexatious one to drag the proceedings in the suit. It is submitted that the Court has jurisdiction, for the reason that the defendant is residing in S.N. Padu village and Mandal of Prakasam District, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is submitted that, the respondent/plaintiff is also resident of Raparla village of S.N Padu Mandal, thereby both parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. The promissory note transaction also took place in the house of the respondent/plaintiff in Raparla village, hence, in both ways, the Trial Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit. It is submitted that, as per Section 20 C.P.C, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits where the defendant resides/works or when cause of action arises and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Upon considering submissions of both the counsel, in fact the Trial Court observed that, as per the address particulars mentioned at the cause title of the plaint as well as in this petition, it clearly shows that the defendant is resident of S.N. Padu, Ongole, therefore, the Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also observed that admittedly, the residence of defendant/plaintiff and cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, as such, there was no need to frame preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction. Further, it was observed that there was no issue framed to the effect that the petitioner/defendant took discharge plea in his written statement. Finally, the Court below partly allowed I.A.No.57 of 2025 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 on 16.09.2025, framing additional issue about discharge plea of the petitioner/defendant, while holding that the petition is not maintainable in respect of framing of preliminary issue about territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

6. During hearing, Sri Srinivas Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is defendant in the suit and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.No.31 of 2024 is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money. The Court below framed the issues. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.57 of 2025 under Order 14 Rule 2(2)(a) C.P.C to decide the issue regarding whether the trial court is having territorial jurisdiction to trial the suit or not. Having framed the issues instead of adjudicating the preliminary issue, the Trial Court on 16.09.2025 partly allowed the I.A. filed by the petitioner and held that the said I.A. was allowed in respect of framing of additional issue. In respect of fra