Order No:  4                                                                            Date:27/03/2024

Today is fixed for hearing of this M.A. case which has been initiated by O.ps. of C.C. case No.287/2019 against the complainant of the said case on the ground that the complaint case No.287/2019 is not maintainable as this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

This matter has been contested by the O.p. of this M.A. case who is the complainant of above noted C.C. case by filing W/O.

Heard argument of both sides. Considered submission.

It is the main point of contention and argument that the O.p. nos.1 & 2 of the C.C. case has been carrying on business at Kolkata and the said place of business of O.p. nos.1 & 2 is not falling within jurisdiction of this District Commission.

On the other hand as per point of submission of the complainant side who is the O.p. of this M.A. case, the complainant is drawing his subsidy from O.p. no.3-Bank which is laying within territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision over the above noted issue this District Commission finds that the O.p. nos.1 & 2 are carrying on business and there place of business is at Kolkata and the complainant has sought for main relief against the said O.p. nos.1 & 2. From the page no.6 of the complaint petition, the District Commission finds that the entire claim of the complainant has been leveled against the O.p. nos.1 & 2 and their place of business is at Kolkata and it is not admittedly falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.  Relating to the complainant’s plea that he is drawing subsidy from O.p. no.3 who is carrying on business at Shibpur, the complainant shall get any relief as because the jurisdiction point is to be considered as a whole. Moreover, according to the case law reported in AIR 2000(SC) 62, 2016 (3) CPR 351 and 2015(1) CPR 515 this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case and so this case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

Thus, this M.A. case No.97/2023 be and the same is allowed on contest. It is held that the C.C. case No.287/2019 is not maintainable as this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

In the light of this observation this M.A. case is disposed off.

Dictated & corrected by me.

President