TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties were residing at Saudi Arabia at the relevant time. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal. Respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the aforementioned amount in the Subordinate Court at Attingal. Although both the parties were residing in Saudi Arabia, Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal for recovery of the said amount sometime in the year 2002. Appellant having been summoned, appeared in the suit. He, inter alia, raised an issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the said court to entertain the suit. By an Order dated 15.3.2005, the application of the appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Judge holding: Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d: 20. Thus I agree with the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that strictly the court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the date of the suit. The question of the nature of relief that has to be granted to the defendant arises for consideration now. Even if the suit were to be returned, on admitted facts that has to be represented to the same court now as admittedly after the filing the suit the petitioner/defendant is residing permanently, actually and voluntarily in India. Any and every error will not persuade the court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction has to be invoked only in aid of justice. I take note that there is no serious dispute raised about liability or the exec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court which is competent to try. 8. The question in regard to the jurisdiction is required to be determined with reference to the date on which the suit is filed and entertained and not with reference to a future date. Sections 15 and 19 regulates the filing of the suit at the places where cause of action has arisen. Section 20 operates subject to the limitation contained in Sections 15 to 19. Place of residence of the defendant being one of the exceptions thereto. Plaintiff is the dominus litus, but he can file a suit only at one or the other places specified in the Code of Civil Procedure and not at any place where he desires. 9. In New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR2004SC2154 , this Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. It must be exercised in accordance with law. When there exists a statute, the question of exercise of jurisdiction which would be contrary to the provisions of the statute would not arise. 12. Application of doctrine of dominus litus is confined only to the cause of action which would fall within Sections 15 to 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will have no application in a case where the provision of Section 20 thereof is sought to be invoked. 13. It is one thing to say that the parties had their residences in India but the same would not mean that a suit could be filed at any of the places where the defendant resides. At all material times, the parties were at Saudi Arabia. They were residing there only. They had been working ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
