AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 07.02.2019, in I.A. No.902 of 2015 in O.S. No.587 of 2012 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
The petitioner represents that he is a film artist and is permanent resident of Hyderabad. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.587 of 2012, filed I.A. No.902 of 2015, seeking return of the plaint, on the ground, that under the terms and conditions of agreement dated 03.02.2012, that was entered into by the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff, any dispute or differences arising out of the agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of competent Court at Hyderabad.
The petitioner contends that the respondent herein filed a suit against him claiming damages of Rs.33,22,400/-, basing on the agreement dated 03.02.2012, executed by and between them. The petitioner further contends that the entire cause of action for filing of the present suit has arisen at Hyderabad, and even as per terms of the agreement, the same should have been filed at Hyderabad. In as much as the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, therefore sought for return of the plaint.
The respondent has filed counter contending that the jurisdiction clause of the agreement was corrected by petitioner as Hyderabad‟ striking out the words Visakhapatnam‟ and sought for dismissal of I.A.
The learned trial Judge, dismissed the I.A., observing that, whether the corrections made under disputes and jurisdiction clause of the agreement, as Hyderabad, from that of Visakhapatnam, was with or without concurrence of the respondent/plaintiff, would be able to be only at the stage of trial. The learned Judge, accordingly dismissed the application. Hence, the present Civil Revision petition.
Heard, the submissions of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the respondent.
The relief sought by the petitioner seeking return of the plaint, on the basis of clause 8 of the agreement, that the jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the suit is only that of the Courts, at Hyderabad, is not sustainable, in as much as, as noticed from the agreement, it looks like, the word Hyderabad was inserted after striking of the word Visakhapatnam. Whether the said word was inserted upon mutual understanding of the parties or not, is an issue, which has to be gone into, during the course of trial and not as an interlocutory measure at the threshold. In that view of the matter, without going into any of the merits of the contentions canvassed by the parties, the Revision Petition is disposed of, directing the learned trial Judge, to frame an issue, if raised by the defendant, regarding the jurisdiction of the Courts at Visakhapatnam, to try the suit, and decide the said issue, along with the other issues that may be framed in the suit.
With the above said direction, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.