C.P. Sadanandan vs Fridge House and Another

M. Sasidharan Narmbiar, J.—Petitioner is the second defendant and first respondent the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 the other defendants in O.S. 200/04 on the file of Sub-Court, Kozhikod. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 1,10,000/- allegedly due from defendants in respect of purchases made on credit basis. Case of plaintiff in the plaint was that plaintiff is the authorised dealer of refrigerators and other home appliances and defendants used to purchase refrigerators and home appliances on credit from the plaintiff firm and credit facility was given to defendants because they are known in the business transaction. Only second defendant contested the suit. Second defendant was sued as one of the partners of the first defendant firm M/s. Lilly & Lilly, Sulthan Bathery. Defendants are all residents of either Thalassery or Sulthan Bathery. Second defendant contended that Sub-Court, Kozhikod has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as transaction was entered into at Sulthan Bathery. As per finding dated 1.11.2006 learned Sub-Judge found that Sub-Court, Kozhikod has territorial jurisdiction and posted the case for trial on other issues. It is challenged in this revision petition filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent plaintiff were heard.

The arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was that learned Sub-Judge has relied on the documents produced by plaintiff and on the basis of the documents held that partners of first defendant firm had another firm namely Essar Agencies and Essar Agencies used to place orders on behalf of first defendant firm and relying on the signature of 4th defendant in a letter dated 16.11.1999 found that he is the Managing Partner of first defendant firm and therefore Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Counsel argued that without oral evidence learned Sub-Judge should not have relied on the said documents, to find that Sub-Court, Kozhikod has territorial jurisdiction. Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that in the plaint itself it was pleaded that the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Sub-Court, Kozhikod and in such circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with the finding.

Rule 2 of Order 14 of CPC provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), Court has to pronounce judgment on all issues. Under Sub-rule (2) where issues of both 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 and for that purpose it may postpone the settlement of other issues. The Court is competent to enter a finding on an issue which could be decided on the basis of law, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. But when the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided preliminarily on the basis of materials produced as evidence, learned Sub-Judge should have decided all the issues together or the preliminary issue after recording evidence. On the facts and circumstances, I find merits in the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that learned Sub-Judge relied on the documents which are not proved or admitted. In such circumstance, the finding of the Trial Court dated 1.11.2006 is set aside. Learned Sub-Judge is directed to try all the issues together including the issue on territorial jurisdiction, after recording evidence.

Civil Revision is disposed as above.