1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Chetendra Singh & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4582/2006) Date of Order:- 25.10.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Dy.G.A. BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against order dated 10.05.2006 (Annexures–1&2), passed by Collector (Stamp) Circle, Bharatpur, whereby the Reference no. 38/05 (167/04) and Reference no. 39/05 (164/04) registered at the instance of Sub-Registrar, Karauli have been decided against the petitioner and the liability for deficit stamp duty and penalty has been created. Admittedly, the sale deeds which are found to be under valued relates to the properties situated in the District Karauli, and same were got registered before the Sub-Registrar, Karauli. It is also not in dispute that the references which have been decided vide order impugned in the writ petition, were registered by the Collector (Stamp), Circle Bharatpur at the instance of Sub-Registrar, Karauli. Suffice it to say that the whole of the cause of action in the matter has arisen within the 2 Karauli/Bharatpur district. It is to be noticed that the permanent Bench of this court has been established at Jaipur vide Presidential order dated 08.12.1976. The said order carves out and defines territorial jurisdiction between the Principal seat at Jodhpur and permanent Bench at Jaipur. Therefore, the cases are required to be heard by the Principal seat at Jodhpur and the Bench at Jaipur according to the jurisdiction defined under the said order unless, Hon'ble the Chief Justice exercising its discretion by virtue of power vested in him by proviso to para 2 of the Presidential order direct that any case or class of cases in such district (the district falling within the jurisdiction of Permanent Bench at Jaipur) shall be heard at Jodhpur. It has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India” (AIR 2001 SC pg. 416) that although, clauses 1 & 2 of Article 226 of Constitution of India providing for how the territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court do not deal with Principal seat or permanent Bench of any High Court but, there is no reason as to why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the Principal seat and permanent Bench seat of any High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down that in case of dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be 3 filed and heard at Jodhpur and Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test from which district the case arises, i.e. in which districts the cause of action can be said to have arisen. As noticed above, the whole of the cause of action in the instance case has arisen within the district Karauli/Bharatpur and both the districts fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur, therefore, in my considered opinion the writ petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be entertained by the Principal seat at Jodhpur. Accordingly, the writ petition is not entertained and hereby disposed of with the direction that the original writ petition along with enclosures thereof, may be returned to the petitioner for proper presentation, if so advised. The interim order dated 7.9.2006 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.