Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandansingh Sadhusingh Chandel, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, challenging an order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2006. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit. The respondents were Smt. Kokila Balkrishna Salame, Ku. Chandrakala Rama Meshram (through her sister Kokila), Ku. Ganga Rama Meshram, and the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) at Exhibit 26 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Instead of deciding that application, the trial court, by order dated 23.4.2014 below Exhibit 1, framed a preliminary issue as to whether it had jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner's grievance was that the trial court decided this preliminary issue without granting any opportunity of hearing to the parties and without recording any evidence. The High Court heard the counsel for both sides. The court noted that the trial court had framed a preliminary issue but did not afford a hearing or record evidence. The High Court held that the trial court's order was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the preliminary issue afresh after hearing both sides and after recording evidence if necessary. The writ petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Jurisdiction - The trial court framed a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction but decided it without hearing the parties or recording evidence, which violated principles of natural justice - Held that the order was unsustainable and set aside, with direction to decide the issue afresh after hearing both sides (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could decide a preliminary issue of jurisdiction without granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and without recording evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 23.4.2014, and directed the trial court to decide the preliminary issue afresh after hearing both sides and after recording evidence if necessary. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Preliminary Issue
- Jurisdiction
- Natural Justice
- Hearing Opportunity
