Baba Gurpinder Singh v. Punjab Kashmir Finance Limited & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate for the applicant None for the respondents. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant, seeking the transfer of case titled as “Baba Gurpinder Singh versus Punjab Kashmir Finance Limited”, filed by the applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, from the court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the applicant states that inadvertently, the petition was filed at Amritsar, whereas the territorial jurisdiction was with the Courts at Jalandhar. He further states that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the petition is transferred from Amritsar to Jalandhar, where the original Award had been passed. He wants to withdraw the main TA No.613 of 2011 2 petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, pending at Amritsar for presenting it to the proper forum at Jalandhar. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the case file. The respondent company is having its registered office at Jalandhar. The Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceedings at Jalandhar. The Award was pronounced at Jalandhar. So, prima facie, the Jalandhar Courts have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides as under:-

Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the TA No.613 of 2011 3 provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the Court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation,--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted; (b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; (c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction. In view of the above, the present transfer application is dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant is granted liberty to withdraw the petition titled as “Baba Gurpinder Singh versus Punjab Kashmir Finance Limited”, filed by the him, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, from the court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar and to pursue his remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The Court at Jalandhar would not raise the issue of limitation.

8.02.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE