Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with its registered office in Delhi, filed a suit in the District Court at Aurangabad seeking a declaration that it is the owner of the association name and monogram 'Garud' (Eagle), and an injunction restraining the respondent, Bindumadhav Joshi, from using the same. The plaintiff claimed that its Secretary, Arun Deshpande, who resides and does business in Aurangabad, was authorized to file the suit there. The respondent, a former President of the association, resides in Pune. The District Court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that no part of the cause of action arose in Aurangabad and the defendant does not reside there. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court upheld the District Court's decision, reasoning that under Section 20 of the CPC, a suit must be instituted where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. The plaintiff's registered office is in Delhi, the defendant resides in Pune, and no cause of action was shown to have arisen in Aurangabad. The mere fact that the Secretary resides in Aurangabad and is authorized to sue does not confer jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the appropriate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 20 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Plaintiff association registered in Delhi, defendant residing in Pune - No part of cause of action arose in Aurangabad - Mere authorization to Secretary to file suit in Aurangabad does not confer jurisdiction - Held that the District Court correctly returned the plaint for presentation before appropriate court (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court at Aurangabad had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration and injunction against the respondent-defendant, given that the plaintiff's registered office is in Delhi and the defendant resides in Pune.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Court returning the plaint is confirmed. The plaint shall be returned for presentation to the appropriate court.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Section 20 CPC
- Cause of action
- Residence of defendant
- Authorization to sue
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 22
Appeal from Order No. 94 of 2010 with Civil Application No. 7685 of 2010
V.D. Sonwane for Appellant, A.N. Sabnis holding for S.P. Shah for Respondent
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat
Bindumadhav S/o Batukbhaurav Joshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against order returning plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order returning the plaint and to direct the District Court to proceed with the suit.
Filing Reason
The District Court returned the plaint holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Previous Decisions
The District Court, Aurangabad, by judgment and order dated 28-05-2010 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1 of 2010, returned the plaint for presentation before appropriate court.
Issues
Whether the District Court at Aurangabad had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that its Secretary resides in Aurangabad and was authorized to file the suit, and that the field of operation of the association is all over India, including Aurangabad.
Respondent contended that the plaintiff's registered office is in Delhi, the defendant resides in Pune, and no cause of action arose in Aurangabad, so the court lacked jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit must be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or the cause of action arises. The mere authorization of a person residing within the court's jurisdiction to file the suit does not confer territorial jurisdiction if the defendant does not reside there and no cause of action arises there.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for relief of declaration and injunction against the respondent.
It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff-Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1974 at Delhi.
It is contended that the registered office of the plaintiff-Association is situated at Delhi, but field of operation of the plaintiff is spread all over India.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 1 of 2010 in the District Court, Aurangabad. The District Court returned the plaint on 28-05-2010 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant filed the present appeal against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 20, Order 7 Rule 10
- Societies Registration Act, 1860:
