C.R. No. 3705 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3705 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 7, 2009 Satpal Singh Sandhu .. Petitioner v. Poochi .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Singla and Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocates for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for treating the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issues, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration challenging her alleged marriage with the petitioner to be false and so the certificate dated 14.5.2007 issued by Gurdwara Godri Sahib Baba Farid Society (Regd.), Faridkot stating that the petitioner is a spinster and in fact the respondent was cheated. The petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the suit deserves to be dismissed on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction and further that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to go into the matrimonial disputes and these are required to be decided as preliminary issues. The application was dismissed by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that regarding matrimonial disputes, it is only the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which can take cognizance thereof and the jurisdiction of the civil court is clearly barred. He further submitted that the court at Muktsar did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as no part of cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. The submission was that both these issues were required to be treated as preliminary issues and the entire suit was not required to be decided as C.R. No. 3705 of 2008 [2] these issues can very well be decided being legal in nature. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein is a big cheat. In fact, he is involved in the business of sending people abroad and the respondent was one of the victims, where on assurance by the petitioner that for going abroad she will have to create evidence of marriage with him and then only it was possible. The entire documents, which have been created, are false. In fact, no marriage was solemnised between the parties. They never lived as husband and wife. He further submitted that the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing the respondent. He had earlier filed a Habeas Corpus Petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 674 of 2007 before this Court, where the respondent appeared in person and considering her stand, this Court dismissed the petition with heavy costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide order dated 10.7.2007. However, in L.P.A. No. 186 of 2007, taking a compassionate view, this Court reduced the costs to Rs. 10,000/-. It was further submitted that the issues, which are sought to be claimed by the petitioner to be preliminary in nature, are mixed questions of law and facts for which evidence in detail would be required to be led and the same cannot be decided as such. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. This Court in Monica Electronics Limited v. M/s R.V.A. Associates, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 379 opined that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts and the same cannot be decided in the absence of evidence on record. Further, considering the conduct of the petitioner which had already been commented upon by this Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by him, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.1.2009 mk