Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 7.4.01 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 18/88, whereby the trial court has returned the plaint of the appellant -plaintiff for being presented in the court of competent jurisdiction, while deciding the preliminary Issue No. 4 as regards the jurisdiction of the court. In the instant case, it appears that the appellant -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking recovery of Rs. 70,043/ - alleging inter -alia that the tender of the work in question was accepted by the Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kota, vide the letter dated 15.1.81 and in pursuance to the said sanction, the Executive Engineer, Baran had issued the work order on 13.12.81. The respondent -defendant having raised the issue of jurisdiction, the trial court had tried the issue No. 4 with regard to jurisdiction as preliminary issue and found that the trial court at Kota did not have the jurisdiction to entertain it and it is the court at Baran which would have the jurisdiction. The trial court therefore returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the court competent to try the same.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.P. Vijay for the appellant that since the Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kota had sanctioned the tender of the appellant, which was not disputed by the respondent, part of cause of action could be said to have arise at the competent court at Kota also and therefore the trial court has wrongly decided the preliminary issue. However, the learned counsel Mr. Hari Barath, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the agreement in question was executed in Baran and the work was also executed at Baran. According to him the running bills were also paid to the appellants at Baran and hence, no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Kota.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the trial court has returned the plaint to the appellant -plaintiff for being presented in the court of competent jurisdiction, while trying the Issue No. 4 as preliminary issue. Though it is true that the issue of jurisdiction could be decided as the preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC, in the instant case it appears that the evidence on the said issue would have to be appreciated in the light of other evidence that may be led by the parties for proving the other issues. Hence, the court is of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of the things if the trial court is directed to decide the issue No. 4 alongwith the other issues and pronounce judgment on all the issues. Since more than 12 years have already elapsed to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it is directed that the trial court may pronounce the judgment on all the issues as contemplated under Order XIV Rule 2(1) of CPC. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. However, it is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the issue of jurisdiction and the trial court shall decide the same alongwith the other issues on the basis of additional evidence that may come on the record, in accordance with law.;