AMAR SINGH MATOLIA Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 15/2/2018 (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 Sec. 20 of the CPC.

(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 2/5/2007 and second, for transportation of coal from Kanchan Open Cast Mines to Nowrozabad, District Umaria (M.P.) on 6/8/2008. Being the lowest bidder, bid of plaintiff was accepted by defendant No.1 and Letter of intent dtd. 23/7/2007 (Annexure-A/6) and dtd. 17/12/2008 (Annexure-A/7) were also issued by defendant No.1. Contract-agreement was executed on 31/10/2007 and 9/3/2009, 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 17/9/2009 by the defendants. Therefore, plaintiff filed aforesaid civil suit for recovery of alleged outstanding bills, illegal deduction of damages of Rs.51,92,863.00 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 and 4 were taken to be decided as preliminary issues, which reads as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_5_LAWS(CHH)6_2025_1.jpg</IMG>