Skip to content


Raj Kumar Dutta Vs. Jadu Nath Gupta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1929Cal159,116Ind.Cas.172
AppellantRaj Kumar Dutta
RespondentJadu Nath Gupta
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - interlocutory order deciding question of jurisdiction--wrong assumption of jurisdiction--revision. - .....cannot be any doubt that such a suit must be brought in a forum within whose jurisdiction the property in question is situate. ex consesis, the sealdah court has no jurisdiction, in this view of the matter, to try a suit for specific performance of a contract for a conveyance of the free-hold in a property which is situate outside the jurisdiction of that court. it follows, therefore, that the sealdah court by deciding that it has jurisdiction cannot give itself jurisdiction to try the suit. it further follows that there has been an exercise of jurisdiction by the sealdah court where it has no such jurisdiction. the question then arises whether this court should interfere in the matter. it is argued by dr. basak who appears for the plaintiff-opposite party that what has been decided.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C.C. Ghose, J.

1. In this case, the plaintiff sued to enforce specific performance of a contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the free-hold of the property mentioned in the plaint. Such a suit was and is a suit for enforcement of a contract for an interest in immovable property. There cannot be any doubt that such a suit must be brought in a forum within whose jurisdiction the property in question is situate. Ex consesis, the Sealdah Court has no jurisdiction, in this view of the matter, to try a suit for specific performance of a contract for a conveyance of the free-hold in a property which is situate outside the jurisdiction of that Court. It follows, therefore, that the Sealdah Court by deciding that it has jurisdiction cannot give itself jurisdiction to try the suit. It further follows that there has been an exercise of jurisdiction by the Sealdah Court where it has no such jurisdiction. The question then arises whether this Court should interfere in the matter. It is argued by Dr. Basak who appears for the plaintiff-opposite party that what has been decided is only with respect to an issue which arises in the suit, that is, with respect to a portion or part of the case itself, and that, that being so, this Court will not interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C. with an interlocutory order of this description. No doubt, in the abstract, it is well-settled that this Court will not ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders unless it is apparent that such an interference is called for in the interests of justice. But each case must depend upon its own facts and it would be extraordinary if, in a case of this description and on the facts referred to above, it was held that this Court was powerless under Section 115, Civil P.C. to set the Court, which decided wrongly the question of jurisdiction and on such wrong decision gave itself jurisdiction right. In my view, there is abundant authority in support of the contention that this Court will interfere in a case of this description.

2. The rule is accordingly made absolute with costs. The decision complained of is set aside and the case is sent back to the Court below in order that Court may return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in the proper Court The hearing-fee in this Court is assessed at two gold mohurs.


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