- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated May 20, 1988, whereby the preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was ordered to be decided along with other issues on merits after recording the evidence.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 69,387/- in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Kapurthala. In the written statement, preliminary objection was raised that the Civil Court at Kapurthala had no jurisdiction. Consequently, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the civil Court at Kapurthala has no jurisdiction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also moved an application under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which it was stated that though the Court had jurisdiction to try this suit as the plaintiff-firm is situated at Kapurthala and also as the contract of purchase was entered into at Kapurthala and where defendant No. 2 in discharge of the letter of credit has to remit the amount in order to avoid any legal complication, the plaintiff-firm through this application submits that necessary permission may please be granted to the plaintiff-firm to sue the plaintiff at Kapurthala. This application filed on behalf of the plaintiff was got dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff. Consequently, the abovesaid issue was framed and none of the parties led any evidence on this issue. By the impugned order the trial Court came to the conclusion that much evidence is required for the decision regarding the jurisdiction of this Court and the preliminary issue cannot be decided alone as such when the evidence is required according to the latest law laid down by this Court.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. The trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The burden of the issue was on the plaintiff and, in case, he did not lead any evidence, the trial Court should have decided the matter on the pleadings of the parties. It was all the more so because the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, was already dismissed as withdrawn. It was not for the trial Court to direct the parties to lead evidence on this issue. It was for the parties to lead evidence, if any. If they decide not to lead any evidence on this preliminary issue, the Court should have decided the issue as such.;