The Supreme Court has reiterated that important objections, including those concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit, must be raised in the Written Statement. A Division Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari observed,.“In our opinion, a plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact. It is for this reason, the respondents(defendants) should be allowed to raise such plea in the written statement to enable the Court to try it on its merits in accordance with law in the light of the requirements of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other relevant provisions governing the issue on merits.”.Therefore, in the case before it, the Bench ruled that jurisdictional issues could not be raised in an application filed to revoke leave granted to file a suit..The Bench was dealing with an appeal challenging two Calcutta High Court orders. Following a contractual dispute, the appellants sought to file a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court. To this end, the appellants also filed an application seeking the leave of the Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865. A Single Bench of the Court allowed the application and granted the appellant leave to file the suit in March 2016..The respondents, however, filed an application to revoke this order allowing leave to file the suit, contending that the Calcutta High Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This led the Single judge to revoke the March 2016 order..The Single judge’s revocation was unsuccessfully challenged before a Division Bench by the appellants. Importantly, the respondents did not have the occasion to file a written statement raising their objections concerning territorial jurisdiction at any stage..On further appeal before the Supreme Court, the Bench agreed with the view advanced on behalf of the appellants. Notably, the Court pointed out that the legal position had already been settled in the 1932 Calcutta High Court case in Secretary of State vs. Golabrai Paliram. On the question of how the Court should approach the application for revocation of leave when it was filed in a civil suit, then Chief Justice George Clause Rankin had opined,.“I do really protest against questions of difficulty and importance being dealt with by an application to revoke the leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to take the plaint off the file. Normally it is well settled that the proper way to plead to the jurisdiction of the court is to take the plea in the written statement and as a substantive part of the defence. Except in the clearest cases that should be the course.“.This case was later cited with approval in the 2004 Supreme Court case of Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. & Ors. vs. Deutsche Bank as well..In view of these observations, the Bench concluded,.“… the High Court should not have entertained the said application and instead should have granted liberty to the respondents (defendants) to file the written statement in the suit and to raise therein a plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court..An issue of such nature, in our view, cannot be tried by filing an application for revocation of leave. Indeed, this is what Rankin, the then CJ., held for the Bench in Secretary of State (supra) and which received approval of this Court in Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co.(supra).“.The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal. The matter was sent back to the Single Judge and the respondents (defendants in the civil suit) were granted liberty to file a written statement, in which they may raise their jurisdictional objections. The Single Judge is then to consider the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law..Senior Advocate K Vishwanathan for the appellant before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta and advocate Rajesh Singh Chauhan appeared for the respondents..Read the Judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that important objections, including those concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit, must be raised in the Written Statement. A Division Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari observed,.“In our opinion, a plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact. It is for this reason, the respondents(defendants) should be allowed to raise such plea in the written statement to enable the Court to try it on its merits in accordance with law in the light of the requirements of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other relevant provisions governing the issue on merits.”.Therefore, in the case before it, the Bench ruled that jurisdictional issues could not be raised in an application filed to revoke leave granted to file a suit..The Bench was dealing with an appeal challenging two Calcutta High Court orders. Following a contractual dispute, the appellants sought to file a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court. To this end, the appellants also filed an application seeking the leave of the Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865. A Single Bench of the Court allowed the application and granted the appellant leave to file the suit in March 2016..The respondents, however, filed an application to revoke this order allowing leave to file the suit, contending that the Calcutta High Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This led the Single judge to revoke the March 2016 order..The Single judge’s revocation was unsuccessfully challenged before a Division Bench by the appellants. Importantly, the respondents did not have the occasion to file a written statement raising their objections concerning territorial jurisdiction at any stage..On further appeal before the Supreme Court, the Bench agreed with the view advanced on behalf of the appellants. Notably, the Court pointed out that the legal position had already been settled in the 1932 Calcutta High Court case in Secretary of State vs. Golabrai Paliram. On the question of how the Court should approach the application for revocation of leave when it was filed in a civil suit, then Chief Justice George Clause Rankin had opined,.“I do really protest against questions of difficulty and importance being dealt with by an application to revoke the leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to take the plaint off the file. Normally it is well settled that the proper way to plead to the jurisdiction of the court is to take the plea in the written statement and as a substantive part of the defence. Except in the clearest cases that should be the course.“.This case was later cited with approval in the 2004 Supreme Court case of Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. & Ors. vs. Deutsche Bank as well..In view of these observations, the Bench concluded,.“… the High Court should not have entertained the said application and instead should have granted liberty to the respondents (defendants) to file the written statement in the suit and to raise therein a plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court..An issue of such nature, in our view, cannot be tried by filing an application for revocation of leave. Indeed, this is what Rankin, the then CJ., held for the Bench in Secretary of State (supra) and which received approval of this Court in Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co.(supra).“.The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal. The matter was sent back to the Single Judge and the respondents (defendants in the civil suit) were granted liberty to file a written statement, in which they may raise their jurisdictional objections. The Single Judge is then to consider the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law..Senior Advocate K Vishwanathan for the appellant before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta and advocate Rajesh Singh Chauhan appeared for the respondents..Read the Judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.