IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.48576 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
VARDHAMAN HEALTH CARE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. GAURAV C.JAIN, NO.4, KRISHNA BLOCK, IST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, NEXT TO FORTIS HOSPITAL, BENGALURU – 560 026.
(BY SRI. S.B.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. AJITH N.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI. SRINIVAS PRASAD, PROPRIETOR: "SRINIVASA GLAMOUR STORES" NO.3, K R CIRCLE, MYSORE-570001 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 31.7.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE IN O.S.NO.361/2016 ON IA NO.III FILED UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE CASE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in O.S.No. 361/2016 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 31.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned VI Additional I Civil Judge, Mysuru, having rejected his application in I.A.No.3 filed under Section 20 of CPC, 1908, has refused to dismiss the suit or return the plaint for presentation to the jurisdictional Court, namely Bengaluru.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction does not go to the route of the matter unlike pecuniary jurisdiction or the subject matter jurisdiction vide decision of the Apex Court in HIRA LAL V. KALI NATH, AIR 1962 SC 199.
3. The petitioner has not made out any case as to how he would suffer if the suit wherein the trial has already begun is permitted to go on at Mysuru Court; contention of the petitioner that his filing the Written Statement would amount to acquiescing in the jurisdiction of Mysuru Court is too farfetched an argument since he could have taken up said contention in the Written Statement itself.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine.
This order shall not come in the way of petitioner seeking leave of the trial Court for belated filing of Written Statement if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DS