Afr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.06.10 16:57:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:22785 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 31 of 2018 Reserved on 5-5-2025 Delivered on 10 - 6-2025 1 - Amar Singh Matolia S/o Late Kodulal Matolia Aged About 54 Years R/o Kotma Kalri District Anuppur (M.P.) (Plaintiff), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh versus ... Appellant 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Bilaspur Through Mukhya Mahaprabhandak (C.M.C.) South Eastern Coalfields Limited Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Johila Area, Naurozabad District Umaria (M.P.) Through Mukhya Mahaprabandhak (S.E.C.L.) Johila Area, Naurozabad District Umaria (M.P.) (Defendants), ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) C A V Order 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the First Upper District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.53-B/2014, whereby, it has directed for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, holding it to be barred by territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court, District Bilaspur (C.G.) under Section 20 of the CPC. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their description
Legal Reasoning
before the trial Court). 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiff, are that, defendant No.1 issued two Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), first, for transportation of coal from Birsinghpur Mines (M.P.) to Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.) on 02.05.2007 and second, for transportation of coal from Kanchan Open Cast Mines to Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.) on 06.08.2008. Being the lowest bidder, bid of plaintiff was accepted by defendant No.1 and Letter of intent dated 23.07.2007 (Annexure-A/6) and dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-A/7) were also issued by defendant No.1. Contract-agreement was executed on 31.10.2007 and 09.03.2009, respectively between the plaintiff and the defendants. Subsequently, dispute arose between the parties regarding performance of work and payment of bill and ultimately, the contracts were terminated on 3 17.09.2009 by the defendants. Therefore, plaintiff filed aforesaid civil suit for recovery of alleged outstanding bills, illegal deduction of damages of Rs.51,92,863/- against the defendants. As per the Contract, though said work was to be performed in the area of defendant No.2, i.e., Johila Area, Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.), which is subordinate (sub-area) office of defendant No.1/South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth ‘SECL’), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, where its head office is situated, but as per NIT Agreement executed between the parties, it was agreed by them that, any dispute relating to contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court only. Therefore, the plaintiff filed aforesaid civil suit before the District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. After entering their appearance, defendants filed their joint written statement, denying the allegations levelled by the plaintiff against them by raising preliminary objection that, suit is barred by territorial jurisdiction, as in pursuance of said contract, work relating to contract was to be carried out at Johila Area, Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.), therefore, the District Court, Bilaspur has no territorial jurisdiction to consider and decide the civil suit. Based on the pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court (First Upper District Judge, Bilaspur) framed six issues and issues No.3 & 4 were taken to be decided as preliminary issues, which reads as under:- “3. क्या ्ቚकरण सुनवाई का ्ቌे्ቔाधि(cid:18)कार इस न्यायालय को है ? 4 4. क्या वादी के ्ቛारा पृथक - पृथक निनष्पानिदत दो अनुबं(cid:18)ों के सन्द्ቝ’ में ्ቚ्ा(cid:18)ीन ्ቚकरण पोषणीय है ?” 4. Though, learned trial Court framed aforesaid two preliminary issues, but vide impugned order dated 15.02.2018, after hearing both the parties, decided only preliminary issue No.3, holding therein that, the Civil Court, Bilaspur has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, as right from issuance of tender till execution of both the agreements, all acts were done by defendant No.2 and works relating to the contract were also to be carried in the area of defendant No.2 {Johila Area, Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.)}, as such, cause of action does not arise in the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court, Bilaspur, therefore, learned trial Court directed to return the plaint as provided under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and in that view of the matter, it did not record its finding in respect of preliminary issue No.4. Being aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the instant miscellaneous appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that, though said work relating to both the contracts was to be carried out in the Johila Area, Nowrozabad, Distt. Umaria (MP) (Area of defendant No. 2) and both the agreements were also signed by the defendant No. 2, but its head office is defendant No. 1 situated at Bilaspur. He further submits that, both the NITs were issued by the defendant No. 1, bids were accepted & Letters of Intent were also issued by defendant No. 1 and contract-agreements were also executed on behalf of defendant 5 No. 1 by the defendant No. 2. He further submits that, as per Clause 32 of the NIT agreement/contract, it was agreed by both the parties that, ‘matter relating to any dispute or difference arising out of this tender and subsequent contract awarded based on the bid shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court only’. Thus, vide aforesaid terms, dispute relating to the contract was restricted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Bilaspur only. Though, work relating to said contract was to be carried out in Johila area of defendant No. 2, but part of cause of action also arose in the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court, Bilaspur as both the NITs were issued by the defendant No. 1, and Letters of Intent were also issued by it. Further, the jurisdictional court was also restricted to Bilaspur only and it is also not a case of conferring jurisdiction to Civil Court, Bilaspur, where cause of action did not arise at all, rather, part of cause of action also arose within the territory of District Court, Bilaspur where head office of defendant No. 1 is situated, therefore, learned counsel submits that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate aforesaid fact, particularly Clause 32 of the NIT agreement. He further submits that, it is settled preposition of law that, if cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of two or more courts, then, the parties of contract may restrict the jurisdiction of any of the said Courts as was agreed by the parties in instant case. In this
Legal Reasoning
regard, he relied in the case of Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rama Mishra reported in (2002) 9 SCC 613. He lastly submits that, under the terms of Clause 32 of the NIT agreement, Civil Court, Bilaspur is very well having territorial jurisdiction to consider and decide the civil suit, but learned trial Court without considering 6 aforesaid legal preposition and terms of agreement, has passed the impugned order, hence it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside, the appeal may be allowed and the trial Court may be directed to consider and decide the civil suit accordingly. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendants/respondents would submits that, defendants organization SECL is registered under the Companies Act and it is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India. Its headquarter is situated at Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) (defendant No. 1) and business of defendants is to operate coal mines situated in two states i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh. Due to administrative reasons, the SECL has divided its territories in various areas for extracting coal. Johila area (Defendant No. 2) is one of such areas of the SECL situated at Nowrozabad, District Umariya (MP). He further submits that, work under both the contracts was to be carried out in Johila area, District Umariya (MP). Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 also carried out their business in that area. Agreement was also signed by plaintiff and defendant No.2. therefore, cause of action in respect of said dispute arose in the area of defendant No. 2 i.e. Johila, Nowrozabad, Distt. Umariya (MP). Therefore, in such fact-situation, only because head office of the SECL is situated at Bilaspur, it cannot be said that the cause of action arose in the area of defendant No. 1. In this regard, learned counsel for the defendant heavily relied upon, in the case of M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading