Full Text
Translation output
A-5
% 10.08.2011
Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Porwal, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM (M) No.634/2010 & CM No. 8733/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
27.03.2010 vide which issues had been framed by the trial Court- contention of defendant that issue No. 1 be treated as preliminary issue had been repelled. Issue No. 1 reads as under:-
"Whether the suit in the present form as filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant is not legally maintainable before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction? OPD"
The trial court was of the view that since issue No. 1 is a mixed question of law and fact, the parties had been directed to lead evidence. The matter had thereafter been fixed for the plaintiff evidence.
The present suit is a suit for recovery. Contention of the plaintiff is that cause of action has arisen in Delhi as the defendant has its office in Delhi and is carrying on its business from Delhi.
After some arguments, it has been agreed that there is no dispute that the parties would have to lead evidence for the disposal of the first issue; however, learned trial Court is directed to record its finding on issue No. 1 in the first instance after giving an opportunity to the respective parties to lead their evidence.
Needless to state that if the trial Court is of the view that it does
2011:DHC:8810
•f not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter it should not delve into the merits of the case.
With these directions, the petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 10, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8810
% 10.08.2011
Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Porwal, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM (M) No.634/2010 & CM No. 8733/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
27.03.2010 vide which issues had been framed by the trial Court- contention of defendant that issue No. 1 be treated as preliminary issue had been repelled. Issue No. 1 reads as under:-
"Whether the suit in the present form as filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant is not legally maintainable before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction? OPD"
The trial court was of the view that since issue No. 1 is a mixed question of law and fact, the parties had been directed to lead evidence. The matter had thereafter been fixed for the plaintiff evidence.
The present suit is a suit for recovery. Contention of the plaintiff is that cause of action has arisen in Delhi as the defendant has its office in Delhi and is carrying on its business from Delhi.
After some arguments, it has been agreed that there is no dispute that the parties would have to lead evidence for the disposal of the first issue; however, learned trial Court is directed to record its finding on issue No. 1 in the first instance after giving an opportunity to the respective parties to lead their evidence.
Needless to state that if the trial Court is of the view that it does
2011:DHC:8810
•f not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter it should not delve into the merits of the case.
With these directions, the petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 10, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8810
JUDGMENT