Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40908 of 2010 Petitioner :- U.P. Khadi And Village Industries Thru. Manager Respondent :- District Judge Deoria And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Nripendra Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Amitabh Agarwal
Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents seeking a decree of
declaration that he never mortgaged his property as guarantee to the
loan taken by the Nari Utthan Samiti. A decree of permanent injunction
was also claimed to restrain the defendant nos. 1, 4 and 5 from arresting
or detaining them in realisation of dues or to auction the property.
Admittedly, the property is stated in Deoria. The defendant-petitioner put
in appearance and contested the proceedings by filing written statement.
Trial court framed several issues, one of them was with respect to
territorial jurisdiction. After the evidence of the plaintiffs was over, the
defendants-petitioner in spite of having been provided more than 8
opportunities, did not tender their evidence, and instead moved an
application that the issue with respect to territorial jurisdiction may be
decided as a preliminary issue. Trial court found that suit has travelled
up to the stage of evidence and the issue with respect to jurisdiction can
be very well considered and decided along with other issues. Petitioner
went up in revision, which has also been dismissed.
Admittedly, the suit was filed in 2001. After the evidence was over, the
application to decide the issue with respect to jurisdiction as a
preliminary issue was filed by the defendants-petitioner in 2008 at the
stage of evidence.
The facts make it clear that the application has simply been filed to
obstruct and delay the disposal of the suit.
In view of above, no illegality appears to have been committed by the
courts below in rejecting the application filed by the defendants-petitioner
and holding that since the evidence is in the process of being recorded,
the issue with respect to jurisdiction may be decided along with other
issues.
In view of above, the impugned order does not call for any interference
by this Court. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed in
limine.
16.07.2010
VKS/ WP 40908/10