Civil Revision No.4783 of 2005 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2005 Date of decision. 24.09.2009 Haryana State Pharmacy Council, SCO No.53-54-55, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Registrar. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, r/o Civil Road, Opposite Sessions Court, Delhi Road, Rohtak. ...... Respondent 2. State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak. 3. Director, Health Service Haryana, Sector 6, Panchkula. 4. The Registrar, Delhi Pharmacy Council, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110006. ...Proforma respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents ex-parte. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 27.08.2005, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which it dismissed the Civil Revision No.4783 of 2005 --2-- application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by defendant no.3/revision-petitioner for return of plaint as the Civil Court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against it. 2. During the pendency of the suit filed by Satish Kumar, plaintiff/respondent, an application, under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by defendant no.3/revision-petitioner i.e. Haryana State Pharmacy Council, for return of the plaint, on the ground, that no cause of action accrued at Rohtak to the plaintiff/respondent. It was stated that mere receipt of letter at Rohtak by the plaintiff for submitting the original qualified person certificate, did not create any cause of action, in his favour. It was further stated by the applicant/defendant no.3 that it had only main office at Chandigarh. It was further stated that it has no branch office anywhere in the State of Haryana. It was further stated that defendant no.1/respondent i.e. State of Haryana through Collector was arrayed as a party only to create jurisdiction of Civil Court at Rohtak. Accordingly, a prayer was made, that the plaint was liable to be returned to be presented, against defendant no.3/revision- petitioner, at the place where it was having its office. Civil Revision No.4783 of 2005 --3-- 3. In reply to the application, it was stated that the Civil Court at Rohtak had got jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The remaining averments, made in the application were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record,the trial Court, dismissed the application, vide the order impugned. 5. Feeling aggrieved, against the order impugned, the instant revision petition, has been filed by defendant no.3/ revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the time of arguments took up the same stand as was projected in the application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition, it was submitted by him that the mere fact that defendant no.3/revision petitioner wrote a letter to the plaintiff/respondent, that he should send the certificate of qualified person, did not create any jurisdiction of Civil Court at Rohtak, nor gave a cause of action to him(plaintiff) to file a suit at that place. He further submitted that defendant no.1/respondent had no concern with Civil Revision No.4783 of 2005 --4-- the case, but it was arrayed as a party just with a view to create jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Rohtak. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the office of defendant no.3/revision- petitioner is only situated at Chandigarh. It has got no branch office anywhere in the State of Haryana. It works for gain at Chandigarh. When the plaintiff/respondent applied for no objection certificate to defendant no.3/revision petitioner, at Chandigarh from Rohtak, it wrote a letter to him, that he should send the original certificate of qualified person. That letter did not create any cause of action, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent to file a suit, at Rohtak. According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit can be filed against the defendant where it resides or works for gain or where a part of cause of action arose. In the instant case, neither defendant no.3/revision-petitioner was having its office at Rohtak, nor it was working for gain at Rohtak, nor any part of cause of action arose at Rohtak. Just with a view to Civil Revision No.4783 of 2005 --5-- create jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Rohtak, defendant no.1 i.e. State of Haryana through Collector was arrayed as a party, which had no connection with the issuance of no objection certificate which act only fell within the domain of defendant no.3/revision petitioner. 10. The order impugned, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff/respondent for representation against defendant no.3/revision-petitioner in a Court of competent jurisdiction, with a direction to appear in that Court on a particular date. 12 . The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.10.2009 at 10.00 AM positively, for further proceedings. (Sham Sunder) Judge 24.09.2009 dinesh