LexMOHANNAKUMARAN NAIR versus VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHANNAKUMARAN NAIR V. VIJA Y AKUMARAN NAIR OCTOBER 11, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: c ss. 20 & 15-Territorial jurisdiction-Question in regard to the jurisdiction to be determined with reference to the date on which the suit is filed and entertained and not with reference to a future date- Subsequent change of residence of the party-defendant would not confer territorial jurisdiction inlhe Court which it did not have at the D time of institution of the suit. s.115-Jurisdiction under-Held, is discretionary-However, the discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and not de-hors the same. E Doctrines-Doctrine of dominus litus-Applicability of- Discussed. Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-New plea-Party c.annot be permitted to raise new plea before Supreme Court for the first time. F Appellant borrowed Rupees Six lakhs from Respondent and executed a promissory note to that effect. The monetary transaction took place at Saudi Arabfa where both the parties were residing at the relevant time. Respondent filed suit for recovery of said amount G before the Trial Court, Attingal, in the State of Kerala, India. Appellant filed application challenging maintainability of the suit on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. But the application was dismissed. Appellant filed revision petition. High Court held that though the Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain H 24 ' ~ \ y· ';- >. J- r MOHANNAKUMARANNAIR v. VIJA YAKUMARANNAIR 25 l the suit on the date of institution, but thereafter Appellant was A residing permanently, actually and voluntarily within jurisdiction of the said Trial Court, hence the suit was liable to be considered by it. Hence the present appeal in which it was contended that the High Court itself having held that the suit was not maintainable, it could not have declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:l.The Court undoubtedly, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 115 CPC. Discretion, however, must be exercised in accordance with law and not de-hors the same. c [Para 5] [29-F] Reliance Abport Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and Ors., (2006) 11 SCALE 208, relied on. 2.1. A suit can be filed only when there exists a cause of action D and which have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. The question in regard to the jurisdiction is required to be determined with reference to the date on which the suit is filed and entertained '· and not with reference to a future date. If a cause of action arises at a later date, a fresh suit may lie but that would not mean that the E suit which was not maintainable on the date of its institution, unless an exceptional case is made out therefor can be held to have been validly instituted. Discretion cannot be exercised, arbitrarily or capriciously.It must be exercised in accordance with law. When there exists a statute, the question of exercise of jurisdiction which would F be contrary to the provisions of the statute would not arise. [Paras 6, 8 and 11] [29-G, H; 30-A, G-H; 31-A] "r 2.2. Sections 15 and 20 of the CPC provides for t!J.e place where a suit can be filed. Section 15 mandates that suit shall be instituted in the Court which is competent to try. Sections 15 and 19 regulates G the filing of the suit at the places where cause of action has arisen. ---\ Section 20 operates subject to the limitation contained in Sections 15 to 19. (Paras 7 and 8] [29-G; 30-A-B] 2.3. Plaintiff is the dominus Iitus, but he can file a suit only at H ~ ~ 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A y one or the other places specified in the Code of Civil Procedure and not at any place where he desires. Application of doctrine of dominus litus is confined only to the cause of action which would fall within Sections 15 to 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will have no application in a case where the provision of Section 20 thereof is B sought to be invoked. [Paras 8 and 12] (30-B; 31-B] New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.and Ors., AIR(2004) SC 2154 and Jindal VijayanagarSteel (JSW Steel Ltd.) v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd., (2006) 8 SCALE c 668, relied on. 3. A distinction must be borne in mind between exercise of jurisdiction by a Civil Court and a Writ Court in this behalf. [Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.