Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59090
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
FAKRUDEEN BAVA
– Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED YOUSUF – Respondent
OP(C) 1953 2022
S.SACHITHANANDA PAI
Issues relating to jurisdiction must be addressed prior to all other matters to ensure the validity of any court proceedings and decisions.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Recovery of Money Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 2 - The court emphasized that a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction must be resolved before addressing other matters in a suit, ensuring proper legal process.
Fact of the Case:
A plaintiff filed a suit for money recovery, to which the defendant contended lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the defendant's preliminary application to decide jurisdiction first.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the lower court dismissed the jurisdiction issue prematurely, the question of territorial jurisdiction should be considered prior to determining any other issues in the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the lower court should first address the question of its territorial jurisdiction before moving on to other issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that issues of jurisdiction should be determined first when raised, as they impact the court's authority to decide the case.
Final Decision: The court ordered the lower court to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction first.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed in I.A No.9597/2019 in O.S.No.610/2019 of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are: the respondent has filed Ext.P1 plaint as against the petitioner for a decree for recovery of money. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 written statement, inter alia, contending that the court below lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and filed I.A. No.9597/2019 (Ext.P3) to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The respondent objected to Ext.P3 application through Ext.P4 counter statement. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, dismissed Ext.P3. Ext.P5 is erroneous and wrong.
Hence the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Sachithananda Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view of the limited relief that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the respondent. 4. The definite case of the petitioner in Ext.P2 written statement and Ext.P3 application is that, the court below does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to the petitioner, the entire transaction took place outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Nonetheless, the court below has held that as cause of action is a bundle of facts, the question of territorial jurisdiction can only be decided after evidence.
5. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ,1908, reads as follows:
“Court to pronounce judgment on all issues- (1)
Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-
(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force., and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.”
6. A reading of the above extracted provision makes it explicitly clear that, if an issue of law regarding the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit is raised, the said issue has to be tried first before going into other issues.
7. The above legal position is no longer res-integra, in view of a catena of decisions on the point (read Reghunathan Nair v.Bobby.A.Thomas and others [ 2021 (6) KHC 804 ],Prasad R.v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Another [2017 (3) KHC 760], andGopinathan K.K. (Dr.)
v. K.Kuttan Nair [2009 (3) KHC 720]).
8. The above provision stands attracted, when a person alleges that the Court has no pecuniary, inherent or territorial jurisdiction to try a suit, that issue has to be considered first, because it goes to the root of the matter. In other words, if the Court tries all issues, including the issue of jurisdiction and ultimately finds it has no jurisdiction, it is power-less to render its decision on other issues, and if renders the judgment and decree without having jurisdiction, the same is non-est and void in the eyes of law.
9. In the case at hand, the petitioner has specifically raised an objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the suit. The court below was right in holding that the said issue cannot be answered on the basis of pleadings alone, but is a matter of evidence, but the said issue will have to be considered first.
The court below was also right in observing that cause of action is a bundle of facts. [ read Dr.Joy P.Chungath v.
M/s.Lawkin Ltd ( 2012 (1) KHC 565 )]
10. In the above conspectus , I am of the firm view that the court below is to be directed to decide t
