Skip to content


Radhamatulla Mondal and ors. Vs. Lokeman Dafadar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in96Ind.Cas.544
AppellantRadhamatulla Mondal and ors.
RespondentLokeman Dafadar and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 21 - appellate or revisional court, when can set aside decree for want of territorial jurisdiction. - .....but lay within the jurisdiction of the munsif at the headquarters of the jnadia district. the learned subordinate judge found that this was so and for that reason set aside the decree and ordered that the case should be remanded to him to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.2. the plaintiffs have appealed to this court and their contention is that the learned subordinate judge has not properly, appreciated the provisions of section 21 of the c.p.c. section 21 provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless.....
Judgment:

Cuming, J.

1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these. The plaintiffs brought a suit with regard to a certain land in the Court of the Munsif at Ranaghat. At the time of the trial it was objected that the land in dispute did riot lie within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Ranaghat but lay within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at the head-quarters of the Nadia District. This objection seems to have been overruled by the first Court and the Munsif proceeded to try the suit arid decreed it with costs. On appeal the same objection was raised, namely, the land in dispute did not lie within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Ranaghat but lay within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at the headquarters of the JNadia District. The learned Subordinate Judge found that this was so and for that reason set aside the decree and ordered that the case should be remanded to him to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court.

2. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court and their contention is that the learned Subordinate Judge has not properly, appreciated the provisions of Section 21 of the C.P.C. Section 21 provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.' It is clear that to entitle the Appellate or Revisional Court to set aside a decree on the ground that the trial of the suit took place before a Court which had no territorial jurisdiction over the property in dispute all conditions must be fulfilled. Now in the present suit it has not been suggested nor has it been found that there has been any failure of justice because the case was tried in the Court of the Munsif at Ranaghat instead of in the Court of the Munsif of Sudder. I may say speaking for myself that it is very difficult to see how any failure of justice could have been occasioned.

3. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge remanding the case to the first Court and directing that Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the, learned Subordinate Judge to decide the appeal on its merits. The appellants are entitled to the costs of the hearing in this Court. Hearing fee one gold mohur.

Ghose, J.

4. I agree.


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