IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4121 of 2009 Between: The Executive Officer, Anjaneyaswamy Devasthanam Kondagattu …Petitioner And: Sardar Gangadhar @ Sampangi Gangadhar & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4121 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 18.02.2009 in IA No.406 of 2008 in OS No.104 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-2nd defendant and other defendants in the suit under Order XIV Rule-3 CPC seeking to frame preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the Court, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- against the petitioner and others. According to the plaintiff, on 15.05.2004, he along with his family members visited Kondagattu Anjaneyaswamy Temple and that while they were staying in a room meant for visitors, the water tank located on the room got burst due to improper maintenance and the plaintiff sustained multiple injuries, including head injury and that he was treated initially at Jagityal Government Hospital and later shifted to Government hospital, Karimnagar and from there to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Subsequently he underwent treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad and after discharge from NIMS he underwent treatment at Nizamabad. The defendants filed written statement opposing the claim. Necessary issues were settled for trial. The trial of the suit also commenced and PWs.1 and 2 were also examined on behalf of the plaintiff. At that stage, the defendants filed IA No.406 of 2008 requesting the Court to frame preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. The defendants contended that even according to the plaintiff, the accident occurred at Kondagattu Anjaneyaswamy Temple, which is in Karimnagar district and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and therefore, the said Court has no jurisdiction to file the petition. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action for claiming damages arose not only on account of the accident that occurred at the temple, but also on account of subsequent treatment undergone by him at different places including at Nizamabad. He would further contend that the claim for damages is based on the nature and extent of treatment under gone by him at different places including at Nizamabad. 4. It cannot be disputed that if a cause of action wholly or in part arises within jurisdiction of the Court, the said Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff underwent any treatment at Nizamabad and whether or not the said treatment would constitute part of the cause of action so as to confer jurisdiction on the Court at Nizamabad are matters to be considered during the course of trial. 5 . It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means and implies bundle of facts and any single material fact among the bundle of various facts will be sufficient to give raise to cause of action. Whether or not the cause of action pleaded in the plaint has in fact arisen in the manner it is pleaded and whether or not the said cause of action so pleaded in the plaint is true cannot be gone in to at the preliminary stage. 6. In the present case, the trial of the suit has already commenced and recording of evidence is in progress. It is open to the petitioner-defendants to raise all their contentions including the one pertaining to the alleged lack of cause of action for the suit and one relating to jurisdiction of the Court at the appropriate stage in the suit. The request of the plaintiff to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue at this stage when the trial is in progress, is untenable. It is open to the trial Court to frame necessary issue regarding the aspect of jurisdiction also if not already framed and to record a finding thereon on its own merits along with other issues at the time of the disposal of the suit. The impugned order dismissing the application does not therefore call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.07.2011 bss