Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Ghai Construction, filed a suit (Spl. C. S. No. 276 of 2009) in the Civil Court at Aurangabad for recovery of Rs. 652.06 Lakhs from the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and its Chief Engineer. The defendants filed a written statement challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad court, relying on Clause 8.2 of the offer document which stated that any suit shall be filed only in the Principal Court of Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction at Mumbai. The trial court, by order dated 14.07.2015, directed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction (Issue No. 2) be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the jurisdiction issue could not be decided as a preliminary issue because it involved mixed questions of law and fact. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had the discretion to try the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue if it could be disposed of without recording evidence. The court found that the trial court's order was not perverse or illegal and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issue - Territorial Jurisdiction - Order 14 Rule 2 CPC - The trial court directed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue. The petitioner challenged this order. The High Court held that the trial court has discretion to try a jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue if it can be disposed of without recording evidence. The court found that the trial court's order was not perverse or illegal. (Paras 2-6) B) Contract Law - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause - Interpretation - Clause 8.2 of Offer Document - The contract contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts in Mumbai. The High Court noted that the existence of such a clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad court; it requires adjudication on facts. The trial court's decision to try jurisdiction as a preliminary issue was upheld. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in directing that the issue of territorial jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 14.07.2015 directing that the issue of territorial jurisdiction be tried as a preliminary issue.
Law Points
- Preliminary issue
- territorial jurisdiction
- exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Section 9A of CPC
- Order 14 Rule 2 CPC
