NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 637 of 2024

1. Ajit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Lambodar Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post Kumanda P. S. Sadar, District Angul (Odisa) ..........Defendants. 3. Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Tirthbasi Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Jarasingha P. S. Sadar, District Angul (Odisa), Office Address- Modi Complex Shanker Cinema Road Angul District Angul (Odisa). ....Petitioners versus Mohammad Aarif Khan Manihar S/o Munshi Khan Manihar Aged About 34 Years R/o Beedpara Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ........Plaintiff ... Respondents (cause titile download from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

30/07/2024

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Second District Additional Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.B/10/2022, whereby, application preferred by petitioners/defendants under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for framing the issue of territorial jurisdiction (Issue No.5) as preliminary issue, has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of advance money to tune of Rs.35,40,000/- paid to the defendants for purchasing of old crusher machine located in the their firm at District Angul, Odisha. As per plaint averments, the defendants came to resident of plaintiff at Raigarh and negotiated for transaction of crusher orally and settled for consideration amount Rs.90 Lacs. Thereafter, the plaintiff has made part payments from the concerned Punjanb National Bank, Raigarh on various dates. When the defendants breached the terms of contract, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of the aforesaid advance money. In the said suit, the defendants have filed an application to decide the issue No.5 with regard to jurisdiction as preliminary issue on the ground that since the said agreement was executed at District Angul, Orrisa, the suit cannot be tried at District Raigarh as the same is barred by jurisdiction. However, learned trial Court considering the plaint averments observed that the issue as to whether any part of cause of action arose at Raigarh, is mixed question of law and facts and same is subject to evidence which cannot be decided at this stage and thereby dismissed the said application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants submits that since the agreement was executed on 21.05.2022 in District Angul, Orissa, therefore, the cause of action itself arose in that place and hence the suit is barred by jurisdiction. He submits that considering the nature of the suit, the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided as preliminary issue, therefore, the petition may be allowed and suitable direction may be issued to the trial Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

5. In the matter of Ramdayal Umraomal Vs. Pannalal Jagannathji [1979 SCC OnLine MP 9 : MPLJ 736 (FB)], the Full Bench has held that if the issue about jurisdiction is mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, the said issue cannot be tried as preliminary issue. Further, an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court can be tried as preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. Therefore, after reviewing the entire case-law on the point, we are of opinion that under Order 14 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code, an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence. If the issue about jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Consequently the decisions c