- (1.) This CRP under S. 115 of the CPC, is directed against the order dated 10th Feb. 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in MA No. 1 of 1976 confirming the order dated 5 11-1975 passed by the learned Prl. Civil judge, Shimoga, in OS No. 104 of 19'?4.
(2.) One of the issues framed in the suit pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. It is Issue No. 1 and it is as follows: "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ?" This issue is tried as a preliminary issue. As agreed by the parties, the issue has been decided on the basis of the documents produced by them. The trial Court has held that the Court at Bhadravathi has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It has accordingly directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. This order was taken up in appeal before the District Judge, Shimoga, who has concurred with the opinion of the trial Judge and has also further held that the suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal,
(3.) In this civil revision petition, as far as the finding recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of maintainability of the suit is concerned, it is submitted by Sri P. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that this question has not been argued by any of the parties and the learned District Judge has taken up the question on his own accord and has recorded a finding against the plaintiff. The correctness of this submission is not disputed by Sri C. G. Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent. Therefore, there is no difficulty in setting aside the finding of the learned District Judge regarding maintainability of the suit. Even otherwise, the learned District Judge ought not to have embaiked upon this question having come to the conclusion that the Court at Bhadravathi has no jurisdication to try the suit.;