Skip to content


Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. Kurunthappan Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in47Ind.Cas.764
AppellantChokkalingam Chettiar
RespondentKurunthappan Chettiar and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 21 - jurisdiction, objection to, omission to raise in trial court--appellate court, power of, to record finding on, question of jurisdiction. - - section 21 of the code of civil procedure, however, says that 110 appellate court shall allow an objection to the place of suing to be taken unless it was taken before the settlement of issues and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.1. objection is taken to the dismissal of plaintiff's suit on the ground that the subordinate judge, having found that the sattur district munsif had no jurisdiction, was bound to return the plaint to be presented in the proper court and had no power to decide the case on the merits. section 21 of the code of civil procedure, however, says that 110 appellate court shall allow an objection to the place of suing to be taken unless it was taken before the settlement of issues and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. these conditions were not present, and so the subordinate judge should not have allowed the objection to be taken. we must, therefore, set aside his finding as to jurisdiction and on the finding as to consideration the second appeal fails. as respondents nos. 1.....
Judgment:

1. Objection is taken to the dismissal of plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Subordinate Judge, having found that the Sattur District Munsif had no jurisdiction, was bound to return the plaint to be presented in the proper Court and had no power to decide the case on the merits. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, says that 110 Appellate Court shall allow an objection to the place of suing to be taken unless it was taken before the settlement of issues and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. These conditions were not present, and so the Subordinate Judge should not have allowed the objection to be taken. We must, therefore, set aside his finding as to jurisdiction and on the finding as to consideration the second appeal fails. As respondents Nos. 1 to 3 took the objection as to jurisdiction in the lower Appellate Court we disallow their costs here. Second and 6th defendants not having appealed against the decree to the lower Appellate Court and here and not pleaded want of consideration, we are not prepared to interfere on their behalf. The second appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //