C.R.No.5420 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5420 of 2009 Date of Decision : 18.09.2009 N.K.Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Managing Director, The Gurgaon Central ...Respondents Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 31.1.2008 and by the learned first Appellate Court on 1.5.2009, returning the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration challenging demand raised by defendant No.2 i.e. The Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon. The sole ground for invocation of jurisdiction at Jagadhri is that demand notice has been received at Jagadhri. Both the Courts have returned a finding that the plot, which was to be auctioned is situated at Faridabad and that the plaintiff has mortgaged his property situated at Faridabad, therefore, the Jagadhri Courts does not have the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Consequently, the orders aforesaid were passed by the Courts below. The 'cause of action' means the bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, entitling him a judgment in his favour C.R.No.5420 of 2009 2 by the Court. Such is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, (1994) 4 SCC 711. In the aforesaid case, the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court was invoked in respect of a tender acceptance of which was received by the writ petitioner at Calcutta. It was found that receipt of acceptance of tender has not given any part of cause of action. It was held to the following effect :- ".....Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement at Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. Besides the fax message of 15.1.1993, cannot be construed as conveying rejection of the offer as that fact occurred on 27.1.1993....." In Union of India and others Vs. Adani Exports Limited and another, (2002) 1 SCC 567, the question of territorial jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court was examined in terms of Import Export Policy. None of the respondents in the civil applications was stationed at Ahmedabad and the passbook in question, benefit of which the respondent sought in the civil applications was issued by an authority stationed at Chennai. The Court considered its earlier judgment reported as Oil and Natural Gas Commission's case (supra). It was held to the following effect :- "17. ..... It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's C.R.No.5420 of 2009 3 territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad. 18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on the business of export and import or that they are receiving the export and import orders at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports and imports are sent/made at Ahmedabad, has no connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever with the actions of the appellants impugned in the application. The non-granting and denial of credit in the pass-book having an ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate on the actions complained against the appellants. 19. In the case of ONGC this Court negatived the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents therein that either the acquisition of knowledge made through media at a particular place or owning and having an office or property or residing at a particular place, receiving of a fax message at a particular place, receiving telephone calls and maintaining statements of accounts of business, printing of C.R.No.5420 of 2009 4 letterheads indicating brach offices of the firm, booking of orders from a particular place are not the factors which would give rise to either wholly or in part cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction to courts. In the said case, this Court also held that the mere service of notice is also not a fact giving rise to a cause of action unless such notice is an integral part of the cause of action”. In National Textile Corporation Limited and others Vs. Haribox Swalram and others, (2004) 9 SCC 786, Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the following effect:- “ 12.1 As discussed earlier, the mere fact that the writ petitioner carries on business at Calcutta or that the reply to the correspondence made by it was received at Calcutta is not an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the view to the contrary taken by the Division Bench cannot be sustained. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, in order to avoid any further harassment to the parties and to put an end to the litigation, we would examine the matter on merits as well”. A Division Bench of this Court in Harvinder Singh vs. Food Corporation of India, 2003(2) SCT 706 has considered a number of judgements of Supreme Court to return a finding that receipt of an order within the territorial jurisdiction of this court does not amount to a cause of action so as to permit the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The argument of the petitioner in the aforesaid case was to the following effect:- “ On the strength of the above, it was argued by Shri Rajiv Atma Ram that communication of the order in fact means its C.R.No.5420 of 2009 5 actual receipt and cause of action accrues to the petitioner only on actual receipt of the order in the case of discharge of an employee so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The essence for giving cause of action, it is contended, is communication of the order by its actual receipt”. The Court held as under:- “As already noticed above, the petitioner had not served within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court during his service of about two years with the FCI and remained posted in North East Zone of Food Corporation of India at Gangtok (Sikkim) or Siliguri etc. The impugned order dated 4.4.2002 of his discharge from respondent-Corporation was issued from New Delhi and was addressed to the petitioner through the Zonal Manager, (NE), FCI, Guwahati. The order, therefore, is deemed to have been communicated to the petitioner at Guwahati inasmuch as it was out of the reach of the Managing Director, FCI, Headquarters New Delhi, after it was sent out and whatever action that was required to be taken by the petitioner was at the office of Zonal Manager, FCI, Guwahati. Even the relinquishment of charge and handing over the same was to be done by the petitioner at Guwahati. In these circumstances, the addressing of letter dated 12.4.2002, Annexure P-6/A, by the District Office of FCI Kapurthala does not per se confer any cause of action on the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It would at the most only confer a right of action. The right of action is a right to enforce cause of action. It is a remedial right for affording redress for the infringement of a legal right. The right of action is a right which give rise to enforce a cause of action. The actual service of notice is only a mode of conveying the order”. In view of the aforesaid judgements, it is apparent that receiving of a fax message, telephone call or having office or property or C.R.No.5420 of 2009 6 residence at a place of the petitioner does not confer jurisdiction. Even the service of notice also does not give rise to cause of action. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 18.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE