Full Judgment
Civil Revision No.298/2008 25.07.2013 Mr.J.P.Shah, learned counsel for the applicants.
None for the non-applicant even though served.
In this revision, the applicants have challenged the validity of the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the trial Court, by which the application preferred by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
Facts giving rise to filing of the revision briefly stated are that the non-applicant filed a suit inter-alia on the ground that he is a publisher, owner and editor of a newspaper.
In the plaint it was averred that the applicants No.1 to 4 are related to each other and are also advocates.
The news item that the applicants No.1 to 4 earn money by blackmailing others was published in the newspaper of the non-applicant.
Thereupon, the applicants No.1 to 4, who are residents of Mhow sent a notice to non- applicant, who is resident of Burhanpur.
Thereafter, the non-applicant filed a suit seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, before the trial Court at Burhanpur.
The applicants No.1 to 4 on receipt of summons, filed written statement, in which an objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was taken on the ground that the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
The applicants No.1 to 4 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.04.2008 rejected the application preferred by the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that merely because the applicants have issued a notice to the non-applicant, which was delivered to him at Burhanpur, the Court at Burhanpur could not get jurisdiction to try the suit.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Firm Sitaram Shyamsunder of Janjgir versus Ganpatlal Shrawan and another, 1973 M.P.L.J.551.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.
It is well settled in law that at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure only averments which are made in the plaint are required to be seen.
[See : Saleem Bhai and Others versus State of Maharashtra and OtheRs.2003 (1) SCC 557].In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the non-applicant has pleaded that the Court at Burhanpur has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
Thus, from the averments made in the plaint it cannot be said that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
However, taking into account the fact that the applicants No.1 to 4 have already filed the written statement, in which plea with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground that trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit has already been taken, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision with a direction to the trial Court to frame an issue with regard to maintainability of the suit in the light of the objections taken in the written statement.
The trial Court shall decide the issue in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in M/S.Ramdayal Umraomal versus M/S.Pannalal Jagannathji, AIR 197.MP 153.
The trial Court while deciding the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order dated 28.4.2008.
With the aforesaid directions, the civil revision is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC