1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No. 23 of 2008 [V.D. Chavhan Vs. P.A. Devsarkar] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent sole. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th March,2008. Heard. 1. Impugned order is passed on petitioner's application under Rule 11 of Order- VII of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The grounds of objections raised in the application are seen from paras 2 and 3 thereof to be the following:- “[a] The defendant's newspaper is not published within the jurisdiction of this Hhon'ble Court. The newspaper “Jai Rajsinhasan” is not circulated in the Gadchiroli District and Gadchiroli City also. There are no customers, advertisers or agency of the above newspaper for Gadchiroli District and City. There is no 2 correspondent of the above newspaper for Gadchiroli District or City. [b] From the allegations of the plaint there is no cause of action to institute the suit before this Hon'ble Court. [c] Moreover, the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit.” Publication, circulation etc. : 3. Considering the contents of para 8 of the plaint, the narration contained therein sufficiently paints the factual background. Correctness thereof needs to be proved in trial. Point [a] from foregoing para is, thus, not a ground for rejection of plaint. No cause of action : 4. The averments contained in plaint do adequately describe the cause of action. The discussion contained in the foregoing para applies in toto to present objection as well. Want of territorial jurisdiction : 5. This objection is pressed relying upon Sections 19 and 20 of Civil Procedure Code. Petitioner's case is governed by Section 19 3 than Section 20. In fact, petitioner's argument of want of territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable as the plaintiff can elect where to file the suit. The contention under scrutiny is, thus, wholly misconceived. 6. Petitioner's reliance on the Judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Chiranjilal Agrawal Vs. Rikhabdass [AIR 1959 Rajasthan 291] may be worth reliance in final arguments of the suit or at the most when an issue of territorial jurisdiction is framed, but not at the stage of objection under Rule 11 of Order- VII of Civil Procedure Code. 7. All the grounds urged by the petitioner do not fit in any of the clauses of Rule 11 of Order-VII of Civil Procedure Code. 8. Therefore, Civil Revision Application has no merit and as such it is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 658 of 2007 IN Civil Revision Application St. No. 17842 of 2006 [A.M. Mohota Vs. L.R. Shende] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th March,2008. Heard. It is seen that the delay is caused due to filing of proceedings which were not maintainable. Delay of 1387 days is condoned. Judge |Hedau| 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application St. No. 17842 of 2006 [A.M. Mohota Vs. L.R. Shende] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th March,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has suffered a decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30th October, 2002 passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1995. 3. It was the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 11,151-00 towards rent and interest etc.. 4. The First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the suit claim is vague and it is not proved. The finding recorded in Para 11 of the Judgment reads as follows:- 6 “11. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the respondent was not successful in proving the fact that the respondent is the landlord, and that the rent is due for the period 1-1-93 to 31-12-1995 from the appellant as claimed, therefore, the submissions by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is entitled for judgment and decree in his favour cannot be accepted. ....” 5. The challenge to this finding is raised, alleging illegality. It is not shown as to how the Judgment is perverse. 6. There are limitations on interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no error of law or of jurisdiction creeping in. 7. Civil Revision Application has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 7