P.K.PALLI,J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff/petitioner to be presented to the court of competent jurisdiction.
(2.) THE plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of money against the respondent -defendants saying that the goods delivered to respondent No. 1 to be sent to respondent No. 2 did not reach the proper destination and thus the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the material along with the interest. The defendants in the written statement took up the objection of territorial jurisdiction and issue No. 5 was framed to that effect and was treated as preliminary issue and decided as such. The learned counsel appealing for the petitioner contends that the learned court has committed an error in passing the impugned order as the said order would be deemed to have been passed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not prepared to accept this argument of the learned counsel. The same has no basis.
(3.) THE next submission of the learned counsel is that the issue required evidence and the parties should have been permitted to adduce evidence and therein plaintiff could have establish is that the court at Jodhpur alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit. No such request appears to have been made as the order is completely silent about it. The only argument raised before the trial court, as it appears from the impugned order, is that the plaintiff heavily relied on the fact that since the goods were sent from Jodhpur, therefore, this Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit.;