Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Parmanand Agrawal v. Arvind Kumar Gupta - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 235 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8976 (4 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Application/Petition No.235 of 2005

Parmanand Agrawal


Arvind Kumar Gupta


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant-petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun in O.S. No.64/98 (Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs. Parmanand Agrawal) order dated 16.4.2005 passed in Civil Revision No.38/2005 passed by District Judge, Budaun (Parmanand Agrawal Vs. Arvind Kumar Gupta) and order dated 1.3.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun.

It is further prayed that the trial court be directed to decide the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction first. Otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are that plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,626/- in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun which has been registered as Case No.64 of 1998. As per the case set up by the plaintiff/contesting respondent it had been alleged inter alia amongst others that the plaintiff is a supplier of Dal Mill Machinery and its spare parts. The said Enterprise is being run in the name and style of M/s Shakti Eterprises. On 19.12.1994 the defendant/applicant had placed an order with the plaintiff/contesting respondent regarding the supply of certain machinery part valued at Rs.1,04,760/-. The delivery of the afore-placed order was made to the defendant/applicant on 8.2.1995 at Latur. Plaintiff/contesting respondent was also paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- the payment of which was also made in Latur. It was further alleged that the defendant/applicant on 10.2.1995 had assured to pay the balance amount within a week. However, when on 19.2.1995 the plaintiff/ contesting respondent went to Latur to take payment, the defendant/applicant forcibly obtained a note from the plaintiff/contesting respondent  as  to  have  received  the  balance   amount.   Moreover  the


defendant/applicant with the help of certain local persons threatened the plaintiff/respondent with dire consequences and wowed him away.  A legal notice dated 28.3.1995 was also sent, to which a false and concocted reply was made by the defendant/applicant. On the aforesaid ground the plaintiff/contesting respondent sought a decree from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun for recovery of the balance amount payable, along with penal interest totaling Rs.66,626/-.

The petitioner-defendant contested the aforesaid suit by filing a written statement. A preliminary objection was taken by the defendant-petitioner regarding the maintainability of the present proceeding at Budaun. It was alleged amongst others that the Budaun Civil Court had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate and entertain the aforesaid suit. In the written statement the defendant-petitioner alleged that he was carrying on business in the name and style of Maharashtra Dal Industries situated in Udgir, District Latur Maharashtra. The plaintiff-contesting respondent had entered into a contract with the defendant/applicant regarding delivery of certain machinery at Udgir, Latur, Maharashtra. The said order was placed at Udgir District Latur Maharashtra itself. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.40,000/- cash was paid to the plaintiff/contesting respondent on 8.2.1995 at Udgir itself. On the said ground it was alleged that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Budaun court which as such had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the aforesaid suit.

On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as seven issues. The petitioner-defendant submitted an application which is numbered as 62-Gha purporting to be an application under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court may be decided as preliminary issue. The said application has been rejected by the trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties by its order dated 1st March 2005 holding that issue of territorial jurisdiction is mixed question of fact and law as such the same cannot be decided as preliminary issue as it requires adducing of evidence by the parties.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court dated l1st March 2005 the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional court and the revisional court by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 16.4.2005 dismissed the revision holding that revision under Section 115 of the Act against the order passed by the trial court refusing to decide issue as preliminary issue is not maintainable. The revisional court relied upon  decisions of  this  Court  reported  in AIR 1988 Allahabad 299 - M/s


Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. M/s Digamber Parshad Kirti Parshad, 2002 (48) ALR 759 - Sidhnath and others Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, 2000 (39) ALR 87 - Managing Director, Unitech Limited, New Delhi Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and others, 1999 ALR 610 - Mithilesh Kumari and others Vs. Gaon Sabha, Kishanpur and others and dismissed the revision summarily.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional court has erred in law in refusing to admit the revision particularly in view of law relied upon by the revisionist before the revisional court in the decision reported in 2005 (23) Lucknow Civil Journal, M/s Sultan Heater Finishers (Pvt) Ltd. And others Vs. Additional District Judge Court No.4 Unnao and others, and submitted that it is a fit case in which this Court should issue direction to subordinate Court to try issue regarding territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. To me it appears that the view taken by the revisional court and the trial court does not suffer from any error, much less an error which may warrant direction to be issued by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Order 18 Rule 4 conferred on the Court from the very nature of its power is discretionary as held by this Court in the case reported in  AIR 1988 Allahabad 299 - M/s Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. M/s Digamber Parshad Kirti Parshad (supra) and a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 237, Naresh Chandra Das Vs. Gopal Chandra Das, wherein the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has ruled that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 are discretionary. Learned single Judge of this Court has taken the same view in the case of Sidhnath and others (supra) and the case of Managing Director Unitech Limited (supra).

On the question of maintainability of the revision, provisions of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by State of U.P., will come into play. The relevant portion is quoted below:-

"Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except here.-

(i)the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or


(ii)the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made."

Neither in the present writ petition, nor in the application before the trial court the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the petitioner will suffer from irreparable injury as is required for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure after U.P. amendment.

In this view of the matter this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.