IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 824 of 2007(B) ---------------------- OS.258/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------- BENZY FOOD AND BEVERAGES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY SUNIL, GENERAL MANAGER, ANNAPADI, PONNANI VILLAGE AND TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- SUBBARAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.RAJAGOPAL, "LAXMI NIVAS", GANAPATHY AGRAHARAM, PUNKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.824 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March 2010 ORDER The defendant in O.S No.258 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur has filed this revision challenging the order of the learned Munsiff that it has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant is a company in which the plaintiff was admittedly employed as a Regional Manager. Service of the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant company. Plaintiff thereupon filed the above suit alleging that towards his service benefits, the plaint amount is due from the defendant. Service activities of the plaintiff as per the appointment issued to him covered the whole of South India and so much so, the suit can be filed in the place where it was instituted was the case of the plaintiff. The defendant company relying upon the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure contended that the court before which the suit was instituted has no jurisdiction to entertain it as the head office of the company is at Ponnani and it has no branch office at the place where the suit was instituted. The case of the defendant was that the suit should have been filed at Ponnani where the registered office of the company is situate. On the pleadings of the parties, the court settled the issues among which issue No.5 C.R.P No.824 OF 2007 Page numbers related to the question of territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, canvassed by the defendant. After hearing both sides, the learned Munsiff negatived the challenges raised by the defendant concluding that it has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Though both sides have argued on various aspects of the questions involved with respect to the claim canvassed in the suit and resisted by the defendant in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the court before which it was instituted, after perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find any observation or opinion by this court on such disputed questions is uncalled for at the present stage. Further more, such observations, if any, made may cause prejudice to one or the other party in the trial of the suit. Perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff, it is seen, the material question involved, whether that court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit has not been properly considered, but, a finding has been made taking into consideration innocuous and irrelevant factors. The court below has concluded that it had territorial jurisdiction holding that the defendant carried business in that place as well, and also it has admitted part of the suit claim. Both these circumstances relied C.R.P No.824 OF 2007 Page numbers by the court to conclude a finding on the disputed question of its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit have no relevance in the given facts of the case. Defendant has admitted part of the suit claim in the written statement is not a matter which has no bearing over the question of territorial jurisdiction. The defendant may be carrying on business throughout India but that would not confer jurisdiction to courts all over the country to entertain any dispute or agitate any claim against the company at any place in India. Admittedly the registered office of the defendant company is in Ponnani and it has no branch office where the suit was instituted then what is to be examined is whether the cause of action whole or in part, for instituting the suit, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which it has been instituted. The case of the plaintiff that in view of his appointment conferring jurisdiction all over South India, he can institute the suit anywhere in South India is not the criteria for determining whether the court before which the suit is instituted has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That question has to be determined with reference to the relevant provision under the Code to find out whether it has actually jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That has not been considered in the present case by the court below under the impugned order. Setting aside the impugned order, the court C.R.P No.824 OF 2007 Page numbers below is directed to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. Revision is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv