IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO 7817 OF 2008 Surya Pharmaceutial Limited .. Petitioner V/s. Degussa AG .. Respondent S.R. Nargolkar, Advocate for Petitioner Kedar Wagle, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATE : 03 rd February, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 3. Shri. Kedar Wagle, Advocate for Respondent waived service for Respondent. 4. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 5. This Petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India 1 takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel dated 02.01.2008 below Ex 18 in Summary Suit No 1 of 2008. By this judgment, the Trial Court has decided issue raised by the Defendant about territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. Amongst other grievance of the Defendant was that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has accepted the argument of Plaintiff that the delivery of goods took place at Nhava Sheva and therefore, the cause of action arose due to performance of contract at Nhava Sheva and hence, that Court would have juridiction. 6. There is no difficulty in upholding the ultimate conclusion of the Trial Court in this behalf if the above finding is correct. However, grievance of the Petitioner / Defendant is that even the delivery of goods were to be made at Chandigarh as per the contractual obligation which aspect has not been considered at all. There is substance in this grievance. If the Petitioner is right in contending that the contract terms provided that the delivery of goods were to be made at Chandigarh, even the said cause of action will be outside the jurisdiction of Court at Pavel and cannot 2 be said to have accrued within jurisdiction of the Trial Court. However, there is no consideration of this aspect at all. Grievance has been rightly made by the counsel for the Petitioner / Defendant that judgment under Appeal is cryptic judgment, as it merely reproduces the contentions and records its conclusion without giving due consideration to the contentions raised by the respective parties and more so, recording a clear finding on the relevant fact. Such opinion cannot be sustained as it will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. There is substance in the grievance made by the Petitioner before this Court that this cryptic decision is the outcome of delay in pronouncing the judgument. In that, submission of the respective counsels were considered on the issue almost one year back and the impugned judgment was pronounced thereafter. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with exposition of Apex Court that such delay should be eschewed. The fact remains that judgment under challenge suffers from infirmity, hence the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition ought to succeed. Instead, the application regarding objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Court is restroed to the file of the Trial Court for being decided afresh. 3 7. The parties are directed to appear before the same Court on 24.02.2009 to consider the application preferred by the Petitioner / Defendant. 8. Needless to observe that the Issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court will have to be decided on its own merit in accordance with law afresh. As a matter of fact, said issue will have to be decided as a preliminary issue in terms of Section 9A of Civil P.C as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The Trial Court may keep this aspect in mind before proceeding to decide the said issue. 9. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 24.02.2009 on which date Trial Court may proceed to decide the relevant issue as aforesaid on the same date or such other date as may be convenient while ensuring that the same is answered before 21.03.2009. 10. Petition disposed of accordingly. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J) 4 5