Present: Mr. K.K.Goel Advocate Vs. the United India Insurance - Court Judgment

Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 Date of Decision: 4.3.2014.

M/s Verma Plywood Industries and another .......Petitioners Versus The United India Insurance .......Respondents Company Limited and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 13.1.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby plaint was ordered to be returned to the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in returning the plaint to the petitioners at the stage when the case was listed for final arguments.

The principal office of the Insurance company was at Chandigarh, therefore, the Court at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

Learned Trial Court while ordering the return of the plaint to the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in 'New Moga Transport Company versus United India Insurance Company Limited and otheRs.2004(3).RCR Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.05 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 -2- (Civil) 141, wherein it was held as under:- “On a plain reading of the Explanation to Section 20 Civil Procedure Code it is clear that Explanation consists of two parts, (i) before the word "or" appearing between the words "office in India" and the word "in respect of" and the other thereafter.

The Explanation applies to a defendant which is a Corporation which term would include even a company.

The fiRs.part of the Explanation applies only to such Corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place.

In that event, the Court within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the company is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not actually be carrying on business at that place, it will be deemed to carry on business at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation.

The latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place.

The expression "at such place" appearing in the Explanation and the word "or" which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the Court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone have the jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office".

Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.05 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 -3- Section 20 before the Amendment by Civil Procedure Code in 1976 had two Explanations being Explanation I and II.

By Amendment Act, Explanation I was omitted and Explanation II was re-numbered as the present Explanation.

Explanation which was omitted reads as follows: Explanation 1.- Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence."

This Explanation dealt with the case of place of residence of the defendant and provided with regard to a person having a permanent dwelling at one place and also temporary at another place that such person shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.

The language used in Explanation II on the other hand which is the present Explanation was entirely different.

Had the intention been that if a corporation had its principal office at one place and a subordinate office at another place and the cause of action arose at the place where it had its subordinate office it shall be deemed to be carrying on business at both places the language used in Explanation II would have been identical to that of Explanation I which was dealing with a case of a person having a permanent dwelling at one place and also Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.05 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 -4- temporary residence at another place.

The above position was noted in Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v.

Prasad Trading Company (1991 (4) SCC270.

By a long series of decisions it has been held that where two Courts or more have under the Civil Procedure Code jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in any one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one Court has jurisdiction, parties by their consent may limit the jurisdiction to one of the two Courts.

But by an agreement parties cannot confer jurisdiction to a Court which otherwise does not have jurisdiction to deal with a matter.

(See Hakam Singh v.

M/S.Gammon (India) LTD.(AIR1971Suprreme Court 740} and M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd.v.Rama Mishra (AIR2002Supreme Court 2402).”

.

In the present case, petitioners had got the insurance policy from the office of the respondents situated at Dera Bassi.

The incident of fire had also taken place at Dera Bassi.

Merely because the regional office of the company was at Chandigarh, would not mean that the Court at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

In the present case, the suit should have been filed at Dera Bassi.

In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly ordered the return of the plaint to the petitioners as it did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit.

Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.05 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1130 of 2014 -5- No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.03.05 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh