Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in five separate Special Civil Suits for recovery of money and paintings, challenged an order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. The trial court allowed the defendants' application (Exhibit 33) and framed a preliminary issue: 'Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?' The plaintiffs invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The suits were filed for recovery of amounts ranging from Rs.1,62,74,762/- to other sums, including amounts for paintings. The plaintiffs had earlier filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC for deposit of the claimed amounts. In response, the defendants filed applications raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The trial court allowed those applications and framed the preliminary issue. The High Court considered whether the trial court was justified in framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact. The court noted that Order XIV Rule 2 CPC gives discretion to the court to decide a preliminary issue on jurisdiction even if it involves mixed questions of law and fact. The court found no error in the trial court's order and dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the framing of the preliminary issue.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issue - Jurisdiction - Order XIV Rule 2 CPC - The trial court framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction in a money recovery suit. The High Court held that Order XIV Rule 2 CPC permits the court to frame a preliminary issue on jurisdiction even if it involves mixed questions of law and fact, and the court has discretion to decide it as a preliminary issue. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the trial court's order framing the preliminary issue on jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Order XIV Rule 2 CPC
- preliminary issue
- jurisdiction
- mixed question of law and fact
- Article 227 Constitution of India
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 6383 of 2012 with Writ Petition Nos. 6384, 6385, 6388, 6395 of 2012
Mr.P.S. Dani for Petitioner, Mr.V.R.Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Borkar for Respondent No.1
Ujwal Shankarrao Nageshkar, Parth Ujwal Nageshkar, Dilip Kamlakar Parulkar, Indrajeet S. Nageshkar, Saroj K. Thokal. Nageshkar
Jaysingh Ratinath Nageshkar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction in civil suits for recovery of money.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the trial court's order dated 11.06.2012 which framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the defendants' application and framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction, which the plaintiffs challenged as improper.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed an order on 11.06.2012 allowing Exhibit 33 and framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the preliminary issue on jurisdiction involved mixed questions of law and fact and could not be decided as a preliminary issue.
The respondents supported the trial court's order, contending that Order XIV Rule 2 CPC permits framing of a preliminary issue on jurisdiction even if it involves mixed questions.
Ratio Decidendi
Order XIV Rule 2 CPC gives discretion to the court to frame a preliminary issue on jurisdiction even if it involves mixed questions of law and fact. The trial court's decision to frame such an issue was not erroneous and did not warrant interference under Article 227.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the above Petitions involve identical facts and also a identical challenge, they are clubbed together and heard.
The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order application Exhibit 33, (similar applications in other matters) came to be allowed and a preliminary issue to the following effect was framed viz. 'Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ?'
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suits for recovery of money. They filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC for deposit of amounts. The defendants filed applications (Exhibit 33) raising a preliminary issue on jurisdiction. The trial court allowed those applications and framed a preliminary issue on 11.06.2012. The plaintiffs challenged this order by filing writ petitions under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court, which were dismissed on 22.02.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XIV Rule 2, Order XXXIX Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Article 227
