1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRA No.39/2010 Bhagwat N. Chaudhary and another Vs. Munshiram S. Chhabra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. L. Deshpande, Adv. for the applicants. Mr. B.K. Gandhi, Adv. for respondent no.1 to 5. Mr. N.L. Jaiswal, Adv. respondents 6 to 9. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th JUNE 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties extensively. 2. The objection raised by the defendants for territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Khamgaon at Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 30/2009, having turned down on 16.11.2009 rejecting the application, is questioned by the defendants in the present C.R.A. 3. Learned counsel representing the applicants/defendants informs the point of jurisdiction was indeed raised at the initial stage. This has been 2 obliquely accepted by plaintiff in a pursis. The second point, that has been raised is the reliefs relates to permanent injunction consisting toll of Muktai Nagar- Ichaapur road in the Jalgaon district, which is certainly beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Khamgaon. To emphasis the points, the learned counsel took me to the prayers in plaint. 4. Having read the prayers, I find they are to the recovery arising out of agreement between the parties entered into them at Khamgaon. The relief of permanent injunction relating to the activities at the toll being the consequential relief, would not be materially affecting the first two parts of monetary claims addressed by the plaintiff. It is a matter of record, the plaintiff asserts that he has a stake and claim in the property in toll situated at Muktai Nagar- Ichapur road, Jalgaon. 5. Though to objection raised a pursis is filed by the plaintiff on 7.9.2009 (it is at Annexure D) that does not mean acceptance of the assertion for ouster of jurisdiction. It was, primarily as the matter was dragged on several counts between the parties, plaintiff urged to 3 deal jurisdiction aspect, by recording no objection for such preliminary issue. 6. The point of jurisdiction in terms of Section 16(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure will have to be taken into consideration with the provisions of Section 20 and particularly Section 20(c) and explanation thereof. 7. The plaintiff specifically asserts that the defendant has its head office at Khamgaon, if the matter is otherwise, it was obligatory on the part of defendant primarily to controvert the same. The plaintiffs have in unequivocal terms illustrated that still head office of the defendants is at Khamgaon. 2003 Resolution or certification produced by the defendant will not change colour or complexion of the matter as the present position is not brought on record by the defendants. 8. In the situation, taking survey of all the facts, jurisdiction of the subject matter of lis being relief to recovery and part payments being made by the defendant at Kahmagaon, will certainly be within territorial jurisdiction of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Khamgaon. The learned Judge was justified in 4 rejecting the application moved by the defendant. 9. In spite of the above situation, if the defendant still feels that the official record of the company indicates the head office being changed at the time of inter-se arrangement/agreement between the parties from Khamgaon, it is open for the defendant to address the same before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and upon such presentation of the official record, learned Judge shall independently deal with the same including formulating issue in consonance to the respective pleadings of the parties. The scope of Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being very limited. I do not find that the order under challenge surface with any arbitrariness, illegality and irregularity in following the procedure. Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.