29. CRA 04.2026.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 04 OF 2026

APPLICANTS

(Ori. Defendants)

:1.HDFC Bank Limited,

Branch Manager, Bharuka Bhavan,

Opp. Yashwant Stadium, Dhantoli,

Nagpur-12.

2.HDFC Bank Limited,

Cluster Head, Fidvi Towers, 4

th

Floor,

Sadar, Mount Road, Nagpur-440 001.

3.HDFC Bank Limited,

Senior Vice President, Human

Resources, West 1 Think Techno

Campus, Buklding-Alpha, Next to

Kanjur, Marg Railway Station (East)

Kanjur Marg (E), Mumbai – 400 042

4.HDFC Bank Limited,

Aditya Puri (M.D.), 1 Think Techno

Campus, Buklding-Alpha, Next to

Kanjur, Marg Railway Station (East)

Kanjur Marg (E), Mumbai-400 042

..VERSUS..

NON-APPLICANT

Ori. Plaintiff

:Mrs. Archana w/o Sachin Dongre,

Aged about 45 years, Occu. Nil, R/o

Jaiprakash Nagar, Khamla, Nagpur-

440025.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.V. V. Bhangde, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Amit Khare, Advocate for respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2026:BHC-NAG:5312

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

2

CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE OF RESERVE :16.03.2026

DATE OF DECISION :06.04.2026

J U D G M E N T :

1) The present Civil Revision Application is filed in

order to challenge order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the

learned 26

th

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on

application at Exhibit 49 in Special Civil Suit No.347 of 2017.

2) The applicants are defendants in the said suit. The

respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration,

restoration of service and claim for damages in view of

termination of her services by the applicants on 28.02.2017.

The plaintiff was working with the defendants as

Relationship Manager at Nagpur. She filed the aforesaid suit

at Nagpur contending that cause of action for filing the suit

arose at Nagpur. Averments regarding territorial jurisdiction

are made in paragraph 22 of the plaint, which reads as

under:-

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

3

“The plaintiff states that her interview was

conducted at Nagpur. Her appointment letter also

points out the place at Nagpur. The entire work

was done at Nagpur. The plaintiff further states

that the defendants are residing at Nagpur.

Similarly, the plaintiff all throughout worked at

Nagpur. The entire communications were done by

the plaintiff at Nagpur and her performance were

reviewed at Nagpur. Likewise, the termination

letter was also issued at Nagpur. Thus, in such

facts and circumstances the entire cause of action

was at Nagpur and hence this Hon’ble Court has

proper jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant

case for its proper adjudication and justice.”

3) The plaintiff was appointed in service vide

appointment order dated 06.12.2013. The appointment order

provides that any dispute in relation to the employment of

the plaintiff will be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Courts

at Mumbai.

4) The defendants had filed an application vide

Exhibit-9 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, (for short, the CPC) contending that the

learned Trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

4

entertain the same in view of the clause conferring exclusive

jurisdiction upon Courts at Mumbai.

5) The said application was rejected by the learned

Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2018. The learned Trial

Court has observed that the entire cause of action had arisen

at Nagpur and the defendants also had a branch office at

Nagpur and therefore Courts at Mumbai did not possess

jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Trial Court

referred to the settled legal position that although parties

may restrict jurisdiction to one of two Courts, when both the

Courts have the jurisdiction, they cannot by contract confer

jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise is not vested with it.

6) Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants

challenged the same before this Court in Civil Revision

Application No.81 of 2018. The Civil Revision Application

came to be rejected vide judgment dated 16.08.2018 on the

same ground, i.e., the Courts at Mumbai did not have

jurisdiction and therefore by way of agreement, jurisdiction

could not be conferred.

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

5

7) The present applicant filed application for review,

being MCA No.967 of 2018 which came to be rejected by this

Court vide order dated 09.07.2008.

8) After the review was rejected, a similar dispute

pertaining to territorial jurisdiction with respect to an

identical clause in the appointment order issued by the

defendant/HDFC came up for consideration before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma

Vs. HDFC Bank

1

.

9) In the said case, the appellant before Supreme

Court was appointed in service vide order dated 24.07.2002.

He joined his service at Patna. The appointment order

contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon

Courts at Mumbai. The relevant clause in the present case

and in the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as

under:-

“The terms and conditions set out in this

letter of appointment constitute service

conditions applicable to your employment in

the bank and with regard to any dispute

thereof, the Bombay Courts will have

12025 SCC Online SC 752

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

6

exclusive jurisdiction.”

10) The services of the employee in the case before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court were terminated by HDFC, challenge

to which was raised by filing suit before Court at Patna.

HDFC filed an application raising objection to territorial

jurisdiction of Patna Court. The learned Trial Court rejected

the application, however, the Civil Revision Application

preferred by HDFC was allowed, holding that the Court at

Patna did not have jurisdiction in the light of aforesaid clause

conferring jurisdiction upon Courts at Mumbai.

11) In the light of aforesaid decision, the defendants

filed another application vide Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC

before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit 49. The said

application came to be rejected vide order dated 26.08.2025,

which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application.

The learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the

ground that earlier application filed by the defendants for the

same purpose was rejected and Civil Revision Application

preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by this Court.

In sum and substance, the learned Trial Court has rejected

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

7

the application on the ground that the earlier order passed,

which is confirmed by this Court, operates as res judicata.

12) Mr. Bhangde, the learned Advocate for the

applicants/defendants contends that the learned Trial Court

has failed to consider two exceptions to the rule of res

judicata viz. (i) erroneous decision on a pure question of law

relating to jurisdiction of Court does not operate as res

judicata and (ii) in case of change in interpretation of law

rule of res judicata is not applicable.

13) In support of his contention, Mr. Bhangde, has

placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and ors. Vs.

Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy

2

, Canara Bank Vs. N. G. Subbaraya

Setty and anr.,

3

and judgment of this Court in the case of

Prabhakar Ambadas Kothale Vs. Shantabai Prabhakar

Kothale

4

.

14) At the outset one must remember that all orders

without jurisdiction are not nullity in the eyes of law. An

order which suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction is a

21970 (1) SCC 613

3(2018) 16 SCC 228

42008(2) Mh.L.J. 794

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

8

nullity in the eyes of law and can be ignored. However orders

suffering from procedural aspects of jurisdiction such as

territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction, limitation, res

judicata etc., are not nullity in the eyes of law. Errors

pertaining to such procedural aspects of jurisdiction are

errors committed within the jurisdiction of the Court. Such

orders do not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. They

are binding between the parties even if they are erroneous.

Such orders are required to be challenged to have them set

aside. Unless such orders are set aside by a competent Court,

they continue to operate and are completely binding on the

parties.

15) Legal position in this regard is explained by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ittyavira Mathai vs

Varkey Varkey

5

, as under:-

“8. Even assuming that the suit was barred by

time, it is difficult to appreciate the contention of

learned counsel that the decree can be treated as

a nullity and ignored in subsequent litigation. If

the suit was barred by time and yet, the court

decreed it, the court would be committing an

5AIR 1964 SC 907

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

9

illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would

be entitled to have the decree set aside by

preferring an appeal against it. But it is well

settled that court having jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the suit and over the parties

thereto, though bound to decide right may decide

wrong; and that even though it decided wrong it

would not be doing something which it had no

jurisdiction to do. It had the jurisdiction over the

subject-matter and it had the jurisdiction over the

party and, therefore, merely because it made an

error in deciding a vital issue in the suit, it cannot

be said that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction. As

has often been said, courts have jurisdiction to

decide right or to decide wrong and even though

they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them

cannot be treated as nullities.”

16) It will also be profitable to refer to judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urban Improvement

Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Gokul Narain (Dead) by LR’s and ors.

6

,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has distinguished

between a decree suffering from lack of inherent jurisdiction

which is treated as a nullity and a decree being passed by a

Court lacking territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction which is

6(1996) 4 SCC 178

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

10

required to be challenged and set aside. Relevant

observations of paragraph 15 are reproduced herein-below.

“15….On appeal, this Court had held that a decree

passed by a court without jurisdiction over the

subject-matter or on any other ground which goes

to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction or inherent

jurisdiction, is a nullity. A decree passed by such a

court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can

be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is

acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the

stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The

defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the

court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by

consent or waiver of the party. If the court has

jurisdiction but there is any defect in its exercise of

jurisdiction it does not go to the root of its

authority. Such a defect like territorial jurisdiction

could be waived by the party which could be

corrected only by way of an appeal or revision.”

17) It will also be profitable to refer to judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Dhondi

Choughule and ors. Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and ors.

7

. In this

judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that res

judicata also deals with jurisdictional aspect of a Court.

7AIR 1966 SC 153

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

11

Relevant observations in paragraph 10 of the judgment are as

under:-

“10. It is well-settled that a plea of limitation or a

plea of res judicata is a plea of law which

concerns the jurisdiction of the Court which tries

the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in

favour of the party raising them would oust the

jurisdiction of the Court, and so, an erroneous

decision on these pleas can be said to be

concerned with questions of jurisdiction which

fall within the purview of S.115 of the Code.

18) It must be stated that Section 11 of the CPC

mandates that no Court shall try any suit or issue which is

already decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a

previously instituted suit between the same parties. The

provision is couched in negative terms which implies that it is

mandatory in nature. The provision also uses the word, ‘shall’

which also conveys its mandatory nature.

19) The contentions raised by the learned advocate for

the applicants/defendants are required to be examined in the

light of this legal position.

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

12

20) There cannot be any dispute that the Courts at

Mumbai alone will have the territorial jurisdiction to

entertain the present suit, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma (supra)

relied upon by the learned advocate for the

applicants/defendants. Rakesh Verma is decided after

rejection of initial application filed by the defendants for

return of plaint and rejection of the revision application as

also application for review preferred by the

applicants/defendants assailing the said order.

21) The effect of the subsequent judgment passed in a

different case dealing with identical controversy is required

to be examined in the backdrop of the fact that earlier

application for return of plaint and civil revision arising out

of the said order are rejected and the said order has assumed

finality between the parties.

22) Before dealing with the contentions raised by the

learned advocate it will be appropriate to deal with Order 47

Rule 1 of the CPC. Order 47 deals with power of review.

Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 categorically provides that

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

13

the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the

judgment of the Court is based, is reversed or modified by a

subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case will

not be a ground for review of the judgment. Thus, the

legislature was alive to the situation that the foundation on

the basis of which an order is passed may be subsequently

eroded by a judgment of a superior Court in another legal

proceeding. The legislature, however, has expressly laid down

that change in interpretation of law by a superior Court will

not be a good ground for review. The provision thus gives

primacy to rule of res judicata.

23) There cannot be any dispute with respect to legal

position that an order suffering from inherent lack of

jurisdiction is required to be treated differently than an order

passed by a Court lacking in jurisdiction on account of

procedural aspects of jurisdiction, such as territorial

jurisdiction. Whereas, an order passed by a Court without

subject matter of jurisdiction i.e., without inherent

jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law, an order suffering

from procedural aspects of jurisdiction is not a nullity and at

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

14

best may be branded as illegal. An order passed by a Court

without territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is required to be

challenged to have it set aside. Unless such order is set aside

it is completely binding on parties.

24) Since the earlier order passed by the learned Trial

Court with respect to territorial jurisdiction is confirmed by

this Court and the same is not challenged further, in the

considered opinion of this Court the said order will operate

as res judicata between the parties and as such it was not

open for the applicants/defendants to file fresh application

seeking return of plaint in view of subsequent decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

25) It will now be appropriate to deal with the

authorities cited by Mr. Bhangde with respect to exceptions to

the principle of res judicata.

26) In the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has culled out exceptions to the rule of res

judicata. The following paragraphs are extracted for ready

reference:-

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

15

“7.Where the law is altered since the

earlier decision, the earlier decision will not

operate as res judicata between the same

parties : Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee's case (supra).

It is obvious that the matter in issue in a

subsequent proceeding is not the same as in

the previous proceeding, because the law

interpreted is different.

9.A question of jurisdiction of the Court,

or of procedure, or a pure question of law

unrelated to the right of the parties to a

previous suit, is not res judicata in the

subsequent suit. Rankin, C. J., observed in

Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee's case (supra) :

10.A question relating to the jurisdiction

of a Court cannot be deemed to have been

finally determined by an erroneous decision of

the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of

the statute the Court holds that it has no

jurisdiction, the question would not, in our

judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly by

an erroneous decision if the Court assumes

jurisdiction which it does not possess under the

statute, the question cannot operate as res

judicata between the same parties, whether

the cause of action in the subsequent litigation

is the same or otherwise.

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

16

11.It is true that in determining the

application of the rule of res judicata the Court

is not concerned with the correctness or

otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter

in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in

the earlier proceeding by a competent Court

must in a subsequent litigation between the

same parties be regarded as finally decided

and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of

law and fact determined in the earlier

proceeding between the same parties may not,

for the same reason, be questioned in a a

subsequent proceeding between the same

parties. But, where the decision is on a

question of law, i. e., the interpretation of a

statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent

proceeding between the same parties where

the cause of action is the same, for the

expression "the matter in issue" in Section 11,

Code of Civil Procedure means the right

litigated between the parties, i.e., the facts on

which the right is claimed or denied and the

law applicable to the determination of that

issue. Where, however, the question is one

purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction

of the Court or a decision of the Court

sanctioning something which is illegal, by

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

17

resort to the rule of res judicata a party

affected by the decision will not be precluded

from challenging the validity of that order

under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of

procedure cannot supersede the law of the

land.”

27) In the said case, an application for fixation of fair

rent was filed by the landlord. This was a second application

filed for the same purpose i.e, fixation of fair rent. Earlier

application was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the

ground that provisions of Bombay Rent Act, under which the

said application was filed were not applicable to open lands.

This order passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed

by the High Court. However, subsequently the High Court

took a different view holding that provisions of Rent Act were

applicable to open lands as well. It will be pertinent to state

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the subsequent

view taken by the High Court that provisions of Rent Act

were applicable to open lands. In view of the subsequent

decision the landlord filed fresh application for fixation of fair

rent. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

18

Court on the ground of res judicata. The order was confirmed

by the High Court. The matter was carried by the landlord

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that rule of res judicata will not be applicable and

subsequent application filed by the landlord was

maintainable in view of change in interpretation of the

statutory provisions of Rent Act. The judgment deals with

subject matter jurisdiction i.e., inherent jurisdiction of a

Court. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

holding that erroneous decision on the point of jurisdiction

does not operate as res judicata are made in the context of

subject matter jurisdiction and not procedural aspects of

jurisdiction. As regards change in interpretation of law,

perusal of paragraph 11 will demonstrate that the law is laid

down with respect to a separate proceeding instituted on a

different cause of action. Perusal of paragraph 11 will

indicate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that

a question of law decided in a previous proceeding operates

as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same

parties on the same cause of action.

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

19

28) The ratio of the said judgment with respect to

jurisdiction will not be applicable in the present case since

the objection is not subject matter jurisdiction or inherent

jurisdiction, but to territorial jurisdiction which is a

procedural aspect of jurisdiction. The ratio pertaining to

interpretation of pure question of law not operating as res

judicata will also not be applicable since the said judgment

holds that adjudication of pure question of law does not

operate as res judicata in a separate proceeding on a different

cause of action. Here rule of res judicata is sought to be

bypassed on the ground of interpretation of clause in an

agreement dealing with territorial jurisdiction based on a

subsequent Supreme Court decision, although the proceeding

and cause of action are the same.

29) In the case of N. G. Subbaraya Setty and anr., the

respondent had obtained loan from the appellant/bank and

had defaulted in repayment of the same. The loan was

initially set off against assignment of a trade mark relating to

incense sticks. The bank however cancelled the agreement of

assignment. This cancellation was challenged by the

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

20

borrower by instituting a suit. The suit was decreed in favour

of the borrower and against the bank holding that the

cancellation of assignment agreement by the bank was bad in

law. The Court granted money decree in favour of bank

towards use of the trade mark for a period from 01.10.2003

to 31.03.2004. This decree was not challenged by the bank.

The borrower filed a fresh suit for recovery of money for

subsequent period from 01.04.2004 to 30.04.2007. The suit

was decreed on the principle of res judicata. The matter

reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that the claim of the borrower, based on

assignment deed was barred by Section 45 of the Trade

Mark’s Act, 1999 since the assignment deed was not

registered and Section 6 and 8 read with Section 46(4) of the

Banking Regulation Act,1949 on the ground that the said

provisions prohibited a bank from doing any business other

than banking business. It is held that the decree in the earlier

civil suit which was based on misinterpretation of law will

not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit which is

based on different cause of action. The Hon’ble Supreme

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

21

Court has reiterated the legal principles laid down in the case

of Mathura Prasa Bajoo (supra).

30) The ratio of the said judgment will not apply to the

present case since the fresh application is filed in the same

proceeding and on the same cause of action.

31) It will however be relevant to refer to some

important observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with

respect to res judicata which read as under:-

“Res judicata is, thus, a doctrine of fundamental

importance in our legal system, though it is stated

to belong to the realm of procedural law, being

statutorily embodied in Section 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908. However, it is not a mere

technical doctrine, but it is fundamental in our

legal system that there be an end to all litigation,

this being the public policy of Indian law. The

obverse side of this doctrine is that, when

applicable, if it is not given full effect to, an abuse

of process of the court takes place”

32) In the case of Prabhakar Ambadas Kothale the

husband had filed a proceeding for divorce under Section 13

(1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

22

husband and wife could not stay together after a period of

more than two years from the date of decree for restitution of

conjugal rights. The suit filed by the husband was initially

dismissed on the ground that the husband could not take

advantage of his own wrong in order to seek a decree for

divorce on the ground that parties did not reside together for

a period of two years despite a decree for restitution.

Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the

provision in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Usha Kumar

8

.

In view of the said judgment the husband filed a fresh

divorce petition on the same ground that the parties did not

reside together for a period of two years from the date of

decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Trial

Court allowed the application for divorce in view of

subsequent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Dharmendra Kumar (supra). The matter reached this

Court in Second Appeal. The question which arose for

consideration before this Court is as to whether dismissal of

the earlier divorce petition by the husband on the same

ground viz. not residing together for a period of two years

8AIR 1977 SC 2218

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

23

after decree for restitution, would operate as res judicata.

Following the judgment in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo

this Court rejected the contention with respect to res judicata

observing as under :-

“It is admitted position that there was no

cohabitation between the parties after 8-2-1977

and till 19-2-1979. The trial Court therefore has

found that a fresh cause of action accrued in

favour of the present appellant. I also find that as

per the law existing after 19-8-1977, a fresh cause

of action accrued in favour of the present

appellant on 19-2-1979 as in spite of restitution of

conjugal rights decree parties had not cohabited. It

is to be noted that though this Court has delivered

judgment on 8-2-1977 in Second Appeal No.

385/1977, the proceeding there started on an

application filed on 7-3-1970 by the present

appellant. It is therefore, clear that after 7-3-1970

till 19-2-1979 there was no cohabitation. It is

further clear that appellant has not been held to be

at fault for this later not staying together. At the

most it can be held that he did not take any

positive steps towards cohabitation and remained

only a mute spectator. But that is not sufficient as

per law prevailing during this period to deprive

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

24

him of his right. Not only this, as already held

above even if this accrual of fresh cause of action

in favour of the present appellant is ignored, it is

more than clear that the earlier judgment between

the parties was passed upon wrong interpretation

or incorrect interpretation and the interpretation

of those provisions on 19-8-1977 by the Hon'ble

Apex Court changed the position and earlier

adjudication between parties therefore could not

have been held as res judicata between them in

subsequent petition. The lower Appellate Court

was therefore not correct in taking a contrary view

of the matter.”

33) This Court held that fresh period of separation for

two years gives rise to a fresh cause of action and therefore

earlier incorrect interpretation of statutory provision will not

operate as res judicata. This Court also held that incorrect

interpretation of statutory provision cannot operate as res

judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the parties even

if cause of action is the same.

34) Rule of res judicata is excluded with respect to

adjudication of pure legal question in case of change in

interpretation of law when such pure legal question falls for

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

25

consideration between the same parties in a separate

proceeding on a different cause of action. When the cause of

action is the same, different interpretation of law, subsequent

to previous decision will not be an exception to operation of

earlier decision as res judicata.

35) In the present case, although the interpretation of

law has changed since passing of earlier orders, the cause of

action is the same and therefore earlier decision, though

erroneous in law, will operate as res judicata between the

parties. Such interpretation will be in tune with the mandate

of Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

36) In the present case, in view of subsequent judgment

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the applicants/defendants

filed a fresh application calling upon the learned Trial Court

to revisit its earlier order rejecting application for return of

plaint. In other words, the defendants are seeking review of

the earlier order in the light of subsequent decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, although subsequent application for

return of plaint is not titled as an application for review. If the

defendants were to file an application for review of the

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

26

earlier order in the light of subsequent decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said application could not be

entertained in view of statutory injunction under explanation

to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The question that falls for

consideration is as to whether the defendants can be allowed

to by-pass the said provision by entertaining fresh application

on the ground that erroneous decision on question of

territorial jurisdiction will not operate as res judicata. The

answer has to be in the negative. It must be reiterated that

territorial jurisdiction like res judicata is only a procedural

aspect of jurisdiction of a Court. It will also be appropriate to

refer to Section 21(1) of the CPC which provides that a

decree cannot be set aside by Appellate or Revisional Court

on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, unless such objection

is raised at the earliest and there has been a consequent

failure of justice on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

As against this, res judicata is consistently held to be an

important principle of a public policy which is essential to

preserve the rule of law. The principle of res judicata is a

principle of equity, justice and good conscience.

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

27

37) Mr. Bhangde, contends that when parties, by an

agreement, restrict jurisdiction to one of several Courts which

have jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, the jurisdiction of all

Courts except the agreed Court lack the jurisdiction to

entertain the suit. His contention is that jurisdiction of all

other Courts except the Court agreed upon between the

parties stands excluded in such a case. Mr. Bhangde,

therefore, contends that since the parties have, by contract,

restricted jurisdiction to the competent Courts at Mumbai

and the Honb’le Supreme Court has interpreted the said

clause in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma to hold that

Courts at Mumbai alone will have the jurisdiction, all other

Courts will inherently lack jurisdiction to deal with the suit.

He, therefore, contends that the earlier order passed by the

learned Trial Court, as also the order passed by this Court

dismissing Civil Revision Application and application for

review preferred by the applicant/bank, will not operate as

res judicata.

38) I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted

in its entirety. When two or more Courts have subject matter

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

28

jurisdiction, i.e., inherent jurisdiction, to try a particular suit

and the parties, by contract, restrict the jurisdiction to a

particular Court, the territorial jurisdiction of other Courts is

excluded.

39) The agreement restricting territorial jurisdiction to

a particular Court will not have the effect of depriving other

Courts, which are otherwise competent to deal with the

subject matter of suit of their inherent jurisdiction to deal

with the suit.

40) In the present case, order passed by the learned

Trial Court on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is

confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Application and

application for review of order passed by this Court was also

rejected. These orders have not been assailed any further and

have attained finality between the parties. For the reasons

recorded above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

said order will operate as res judicata between the parties.

The case of defendants does not fall within any of the

exceptions to the rule of res judicata. Rather, Mathura Prasad

Bajoo Jaiswal itself clarifies that a question pertaining to

29. CRA 04.2026.odt

29

interpretation of law will operate as res judicata in a

subsequent proceeding between the same parties when cause

of action is the same. The said observation in the case of

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal will apply to the present case

with a greater force, since the subsequent application is based

on same cause of action and is filed in the same civil suit. As

regards objection pertaining to jurisdiction, the objection is

not with respect to inherent lack of jurisdiction and,

therefore, applicability of res judicata will not be excluded on

that ground as well. The subsequent application filed by the

defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of

plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, is

rightly rejected in the light of earlier orders.

41) Civil Revision is therefore dismissed, with no order

as to costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

T …

αɳɱαყ