Where the plaint did not allege any thing on the face of it, which gave the jurisdiction, and the court by an oversight omitted to notice the defect and accepted the plaint, and the attention of the court is called to the point by the defendant, the court ought either to reject the plaint, or to return it to the plaintiff for amendment.
Avva Ummah Vs. Casinader (24 N.L.R. 199)
Section 45 of the Civil Procedure Code requires a statement of the facts setting out the jurisdiction of the court to try and determine the claim. The necessary averments must appear in the body of the plaint in the form of distinct averments. The plea as to residence in the plaint was ambiguous. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code confers jurisdiction on the District Court, within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. “Resides” in the case of a natural person refers to the place where he has his family establishment and home. In the case of a corporation in India the corporation is deemed to carry on business as the sole or principle office. But our Civil Procedure Code does not have a similar explanation. The plea based on residence in the plaint is insufficient as there is no unequivocal assertion that defendant resides within jurisdiction. The use of the word “deemed” in the plaint to describe residence suggests that defendant did not in fact reside within the jurisdiction.
Blue Diamond Ltd. Vs. Amsterdam Rotterdem Bank M.V(1993 (2) S.L.R. 249)
No comments:
Post a Comment