Summary
The Supreme Court restored a suit after holding that the disputed territorial-jurisdiction plea should have been raised in the written statement and tried through framed issues. Except in the clearest cases, difficult mixed questions should not be determined by revoking Clause 12 leave on an application. Jurisdiction and substantive merits remained open.
Issues
- Whether the disputed territorial-jurisdiction question was properly decided on an application to revoke leave.
Provisions considered
- Clause 12, Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court, 1865Leave-revocation procedure was inappropriate for the disputed mixed jurisdictional question here; the defendants could plead it substantively in their written statement. (¶ 14–20)
- Order XIV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908After the written statement the Single Judge was to frame appropriate issues and decide them under the prescribed procedure. (¶¶ 20, 22–25)
Held
- The approved approach is to raise territorial jurisdiction as a substantive defence in the written statement, except in the clearest cases. The defendants had filed no written statement, and this mixed question of fact and law should not have been decided through their revocation application. (¶ 15–20)
- Dismissal of the revocation application did not finally establish territorial jurisdiction or resolve the suit. The defendants retained liberty to raise that and other pleas, with fresh issue-based adjudication uninfluenced by earlier observations. (¶ 22–25)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned orders and Single Judge’s revocation order set aside; revocation application dismissed. Defendants permitted to file written statement and raise jurisdiction and other pleas; suit remanded for framing and deciding issues. Merits reserved.