^^^ ^<e' &^ _^-—'." •B&'" ^L IN 'THB HIOH C-QURT QF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR r*'""Er&'!WPT<en,A'@JEa' ^^« ^•jc.ijra.n.* s. a,S9\S£%£^sa. B%ErS^3Stft .A. N0. ^/r /2006 APPELLANT ^AINTIFF RESPONDEBT V^]FENDANT / Shakur Ansari, Aged about 55 years, / S/ Q. Santokhi Ansari, R/o. Village Hotka.chora, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt, Bastar (C.G.l VERSU.S : L^-^Banshilal Mundra, Aged about 45 years, •• S./o. Late Jagajmath Mundra, R/o. Moti Talab / Pa.ra, Behind DaniQdar Petrol Puinp. Jagdalpur^ District Bastar (CQ) APPEAL UKDERORDBR 43 RULB l(a) OF CIVII, PROCEDURB CODE _^Si^:' Dl ^si sji^T aiMi<!9> \.\ 's^ 't.twm^, •sx\\ww, hwwy. /.Q..L sn^r 'q^q? (•^fgq^tr) TWK'aftd 311^1 S.B.HonIiteShrLJysticeN.K, 04,11.2009 Aaarwal Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advjxate for the appellant. Shri RN Jha, Advocate fo( respondent. With the eonsent of the p^rties, the matter is heard finally. Feeling aggrieved by the by the lllrd Additionat District Jpdge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG) in civil suit No. 1-B/2004, wherefc|y and whereunder issue No. 4 has been decided in favour of ffl plaint has been returned to be p| court at Dantewada. The undisputed facts gii| under: of his lodge to the plaintiff/appel ^rder dated 18.10.2005, passed e defendant/rtespondent and the •esented before the jurisdictional 'ing rise to this appeal are as Both the parties are permjanent resident of Jagdalpur; the respondent awarded a constru4tion work to construct first floor ant herein. As per plaintiff, he c^nstructaj the same but the remuneration/contract amouht >1as not been paid to him by the respondent, therefore, he institi^ed a suit for its recovery before the trial court. On an objectioi|i taken by the respondent, one issue as issue No. 4 has been frlamed which reads as under: '"Vff qi^t W qR ^ '^•rtl^ S^nfe^R qR WR'T t;^Etirii f! 'S^T^I sN ^ 5i& "ttWMV %t ^ t I" =&3ua=fe p:;i.- ;,'0^t?PTS, r".i^l'M4< ^...^.^......^>.............. st^ff'Taw ('^3^1*') 3?f^ ^T f^'-lN* ^TT 3TT^5TsR^^ IBIWIT^lto MI?5T D This issue was heard hearing both the parties, the t|-ial court recorded a flndlng that the suit is triable by jurisdicjtional court of Dantewada and returned the plaint. Shri ManoJ Paranjpe, le|irned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that th^ circumstances of the presen '^F?f?f£^'^TR^ff ^ ts1c^ Tf^?r-1 ^siRfqsn^i as preliminary issue and after trial court. has erred in recording its finding that no part of c^use of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jagdaljaur; and submitted that the ratio of Supreme Court decision p^ssed in case of M/s Hanil Era Textile Ltd. v. M/s Purumatic | Filters (P) Ltd, reported in AIR 2004 SCW-2914 is not ^ipplicable In the facts and case inasmuch as admittedly there is no contract between jthe parties to the effect that in case of dispute the same wil be settled within the terrltorial jurisdiction of Dantewada court. In the present case, the parties are permanent resident of Jagdalpur, part of cause of action also arose in the jurisdictiorj of Jagdalpur court therefore, certainly Jagdalpur court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Per contra, Shri RN Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the orjder and submit that the order passed by the District Judge, jJagdalpur is well reasoned order and deserves to be upheld. | f^fw^ \ ^ -^ J.ri •.:'*^-^/ /•• + XI-HC—78 an^i ^RT l<-(idi TfSTT 3TR?T SftH ^st ^W\v\^, wvf\w\Q, fs«niyy,< sn^i '<^v (^f^v!) 'E^nwHftB aii^r ^ <*i'<i<'t^fl-] *<iid)' ^ fe%> <r"i*»;i< ^; 3Tfin 31I^?I Sahil 16 dohe 1 have heard the couns^l perused the order impugned. Admittedly, both the Jagdalpur. As per Section compensation for wrong don^ property, if the wrong was jurisdiction of one court and business, or personally works the jurisdiction of another Court| option oflhe plaintiff in either ofjl In view of this, it cannot no jurisdiction to try the instantj case of disputes relating to there is no agreement to settle) jurisdictionof Dantewada Court| In view of above, as the jurisdiction of Jagdalpur, the returning the plaint. In the result, the order matter is remitted back to decide accordance with law. Appeal is allowed. No appearing for the parties and pa(ties are permanent resident of of CPC, where a suit is for to the person or to movable wjthin the local limits of the thejdefendant resides, orcarries on |or gain, within the local limits of the suit m^y be instituted at the the said Court. . (>e said that Jagdalpur court has jsuit. Section 16 applies only in iijnmovable properi:y. Admittedly, the dispute within the territorial (n the instant case. rtarties reside within the territorial trlal court has committed error in mpugned is set aside and the the case on its own merits in order asto costs. Sd/- N.KAgarwai Judge ^ ^