Sh. Ramesh Mittal and Others vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.2.2000 whereby the suit of the Appellants/plaintiffs for recovery of the rent of the go down let out to the Respondent No. 4 was dismissed.

The trial court has dismissed the suit both on merits and also by arriving at a finding that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction. The relevant findings with respect to territorial jurisdiction are contained in paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment and decree which read as under:

It is not disputed that the original lease agreement in respect of go down in question was executed with Defendant No. 3 at Kurukshetra and the said go down is situated at Ladwa in District Kurukshetra (Haryana) and the payment of rent/hire charges was received at Kurukshetra by the plaintiff. It was an essential pre-requisite to execute fresh lease agreement by plaintiffs before Defendant No. 3 or 4 at Kurukshetra or Chandigarh to enable them to claim difference of rent/hire charges for the go down. No cause of action accrued to plaintiffs at Delhi. Simply because, the correspondence with the plaintiffs at Delhi address after the desiring of go down or because the revised hire charges were sanctioned by the Head Office or because the registered Head Office is situated in Delhi, it cannot be said that Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In taking this view, I draw support from judgment reported in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, wherein, it has been held that the Court at a place where the corporation is having subordinate office would have the jurisdiction as the cause of action arose there and the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court where the corporation has its principal office.

I have carefully gone through the judgment reported I 87(2000) DLT 348 and I find that the same is distinguishable on facts as in the above-cited case, letter of guarantee was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and so it was held that a part of cause of action arose in Delhi. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not performed any part of contract at Delhi and in judgment reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1514, it has been clearly held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court simply because where corporation has its principal office there and therefore, Delhi Courts do not have the territorial jurisdiction simply because the registered Head Office of the Defendants is at Delhi. I am of the considered opinion that no part of cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs at Delhi. In view of this, I hold that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendants.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant admits that courts at Delhi would have no jurisdiction but states that a court which has no jurisdiction could not have decided the case on merits but ought to have simply returned the plaint without giving the findings on merits.

Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is very clear that once the court is found to lack jurisdiction the plaint has to be returned for filing in the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction and the court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, since there is lack of jurisdiction, cannot decide the issues on merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed to the extent it challenges the findings with respect to issue No. 4 where it is held that the court has no territorial jurisdiction, however the appeal is accepted by which challenge is laid to the case decided on merits inasmuch as a court which lacks jurisdiction could not have disposed of the case on merits.

The plaint, is therefore returned to the Appellant/plaintiff for being filed in the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction, if so advised. Appellant to appear before the Districts and Sessions Judge on 14.3.2011 for return of the plaint in accordance with law. Trial court record be sent back.