SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2082/2001. Case: Ramavtar Agarwal Th. Lrs. Vs M/s. Roshan Motors & Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2082/2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Mr. V. K. Tamoliya, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. |
| Judges | Bela M. Trivedi, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code - Order XLIII Rule 1 |
| Judgement Date | September 03, 2013 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Bela M. Trivedi, J., (At Jaipur)
-
The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 20.11.01 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court) in Civil Suit No. 11/96, whereby the trial court has returned the plaint of the appellants for being presented before the competent court.
-
It appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and rendition of the accounts against the respondents-defendants, alleging interalia that the respondent No. 1 was the agent of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were engaged in business of financing the vehicles. The appellant-plaintiff had obtained a loan from the respondents for the vehicle-Bus after executing the agreement. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the respondents-defendants were not giving the correct accounts of the payments of instalments made by the appellant and were threatening the appellant to take forcible possession of the vehicle in question and, therefore, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement denying the allegations levelled by the appellant and further contending interalia that as per the agreement, only the court at Bombay and Indore had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It appears that the trial court after framing the issues, from the pleadings of the parties, decided the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and ordered to return the plaint for being presented before the court having jurisdiction, by the impugned order.
-
It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. V.K. Tamoliya, for the appellant that the agreement in question was executed in Jaipur, the delivery of the vehicle was taken in Jaipur and the registration of the vehicle in question was also done in Jaipur and therefore, part of cause of action had arisen at the court at Jaipur only.
-
However, the learned counsel Mr. Manish Sharma for the respondents submitted that the parties having agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of Indore court and M.P. High Court, Indore, the court at Jaipur did not have the jurisdiction. He also submitted that even as per the Condition No. 14 of the Conditions contained in the printed form of the agreement, the dispute had to be referred to an Arbitrator and in that case the court at Bombay had the jurisdiction but not the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial