2007 (3) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT

Whether a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana so as to entertain a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant-company against the respondents?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a ‘part of cause of action’, nothing less than that.

In the present case, the facts which have been pleaded by the appellant-company cannot be said to be essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of ‘cause of action’ within the meaning of article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition.

For the foregoing reasons no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.