1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 27.4.2005, passed in Title Suit No. 55/04, whereby the said suit, which the petitioner instituted, has been held to be a suit instituted in a court, which had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint has accordingly been directed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, to be returned to the plaintiff.
2. Heard Mr. O.P Bhatti, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. None has appeared on behalf, of the defendant-opposite party.
3. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy, raised in this revision, it needs to be pointed out that in the plaint, which gave rise to the suit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, sent an advocate notice, dated 13.2.2004, which the petitioner received at Guwahati, and, by the said notice, the defendant claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,44,254 was lying outstanding to be paid by M/s. Tama Stores of which the petitioner was alleged to be the proprietor. The petitioner, however, denied his status as proprietor of the said M/s. Tama Stores and the fact that the he has any amount as his outstanding liability to be paid to the defendant. This apart, as the notice was received by the plaintiff, at Guwahati, asking him to make the payment of the said alleged outstanding dues, the court, at Guwahati, had jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it contended, inter alia, that merely because of the fact that a notice was received by the plaintiff, at Guwahati, it could not have given rise to a cause of action, at Guwahati, enabling the plaintiff to institute suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, at Guwahati. Taking into account the fact that the defendant-opposite party herein had resisted the suit by contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the suit had been instituted in a court, which lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, the learned trial court framed a preliminary issue on the question as to whether it had jurisdiction to try the suit. On coming to the conclusion, as already indicated above, that it suffered from lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, the learned trial court directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the return of the plaint, the plaintiff has impugned the same in this revision.
5. While considering the impugned order, dated 27.4.2005, it needs to be pointed out that under order XIV, rule 1, a preliminary issue can be raised and decided by the court only on a question of law. If the issue raised is not a pure question of law, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. In the case at hand, the issue of law was as to whether the learned trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit or not. The fact that the notice, as contended by the plaintiff, had been served on the plaintiff, at Guwahati, was not in dispute.
6. Thus, the facts, in controversy, in the suit, were as to whether the plaintiff was the proprietor of M/s. Tama Stores or not, as to whether the said M/s. Tama Stores had any business dealings with the defendant or not, whether, as a result of such business transactions, a sum of Rs. 4,44,254 became due and payable to the defendant by the said M/s. Tama Stores or not and, whether the plaintiff, as a proprietor of the said store, was liable to pay the said amount or not. These facts, taken together; do give rise to a cause of action for institution of the suit and for determination of the question as to whether the plaintiff was liable to pay the amount, or any part thereof, as has been demanded by the defendant or not. As the notice was received at Guwahati, the suit has been instituted at Guwahati.
7. In legal parlance, the expression ‘cause of action’ is, generally, understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a cause of action’ is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. [See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640].
8. Thus, the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts, which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by, the court. In Chand Kour v. Pratab Singh, ILR (1889) 16 Cal. 98, Lord Watson said:
“……. the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action or, in other words; to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.”
9. In determining, therefore, the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words, the question whether a court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the plaint. [See Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kr. Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711].
10. Though it may be true that a mere receipt of a notice may not give rise to cause of action, receipt of notice of demand with several facts, taken together, may give rise to cause of action inasmuch as cause of action is nothing, but a bundle of facts. In the case at hand, the notice, in question, simplicitor might not be taken to have given rise to any cause of action; nevertheless, the fact that the demand, for payment of the alleged outstanding dues, was made, at Guwahati, along with the questions, in controversy, indicated hereinbefore, do give rise to cause of action. The present one was not the case, wherein the ‘cause of action’ entirely rested on the receipt of notice. The receipt of notice is merely one of the facts giving rise to the cause of action inasmuch as the questions, as already indicated hereinbefore, are as to whether the plaintiff was the proprietor of the said M/s. Tama Stores and as to whether the plaintiff, as the proprietor of the said store, was liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 4,44,254 or any part thereof ?
11. Considered thus, it is clear that the learned court below did have the jurisdiction to try the suit, at Guwahati, and, consequently, the plaint could not have been returned, on the ground that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
12. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this, revision succeeds. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The learned trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the Title Suit No. 55/04 aforementioned in accordance with law.
13. This Civil Revision Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of.
Comments