Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition by the defendant Kundanmal and others against an order of the Civil Judge, Nagaur, dated the 28th of September, 1956.
(2.) IN a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, it was stated that the defendant resided at Ladnu within the jurisdiction of the lower court and the suit was, therefore, instituted in that court. The defendant disputed the correctness of the allegation that he resided within the jurisdiction of the lower court. A preliminary issue was framed whether the defendant resided at Ladnu and whether the suit lay within the jurisdiction of the court below. The lower court after trying the issue did feel inclined to give a finding as to whether the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of that court but determined the issue in favour of the plaintiffs for the reason that defendants had submitted to the jurisdiction of that court by filing a written statement and denying the claim of the plaintiffs. The court below referred to a decision of this Court in Ramanlal vs. Ramgapal (1), The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the court below was wrong in invoking the authority of Ramanlal's case (l), because the observation of the Court in that case were on a point of an international law. It was held in Ramanlal's case that where a non-resident foreigner submits to the jurisdiction of a court he cannot then be allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of such court. It was also held that filing of the written statements on merits enough to warrant an inference that a non-resident foreigner has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. The learned counsel for the opposite side has raised a preliminary point that no revision lies against ah interlocutory order in view of the decision of this Court in Sarup Narain vs. Gopi Nath (2 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners has met the preliminary objection by referring to a Single Judge decision of this Court in Firm, Purshottamdas Samaldas vs. Firm. Bilasarai Mannalal (3) wherein it has been observed that where objection as to territorial jurisdiction is raised at the initial stage and disallowed by a court, and a revision is filed in the High Court against such decision it would be maintainable (1) because the question of jurisdiction cannot be agitated by way of appeal under sec. 105 C. P. C. as a wrong decision on the question of jurisdiction does not necessarily import a failure of justice in the trial; (2) in such a case to expect the defendant to show that any failure of justice has occurred is to expect the impossible. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel of the opposite side is disallowed in view of the decision in Firm, Purshotam Das Samal Das' case (3 ). It may be noted that the decision that has been referred to by the lower court relates to a case of a non-resident foreigner and it cannot be made use of under the circumstances of this case where the defendant does not claim to be a non-resident foreigner and the suit was instituted on the allegation that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the court. In the present case, it was obligatory for the lower court to give a finding as to whether the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the court and to determine the issue of jurisdiction on that finding. There can be no question of submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court where the defendant is a citizen of the State, who cannot disown the jurisdiction of the State Courts. The revision application succeeds and the order of the lower court dated the 28th of September, 1956 is set aside, and the court below is directed to determine the issue about territorial jurisdiction after giving a finding on the question of fact whether the defendants resided at a place within the jurisdiction of that court : or whether the cause of action arose at such a place. The costs of this revision shall abide the result of the case in the lower court. . ;