Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Rejecting Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction in Service Termination Suit. Plaintiff's Cause of Action Arose at Nagpur Where She Worked and Was Terminated, Conferring Jurisdiction on Nagpur Courts Under Section 20(c) CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 14:25:48

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The respondent/plaintiff, Mrs. Archana Dongre, was employed as a Relationship Manager with HDFC Bank Limited at its Nagpur branch. Her services were terminated on 28 February 2017. She filed Special Civil Suit No. 347 of 2017 before the 26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal, restoration of service, and damages. The defendants/applicants (HDFC Bank and its officers) filed an application at Exhibit 49 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur court. They contended that the termination letter was issued from Mumbai, and therefore, only courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application on 26 August 2025. The defendants filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging that order. The High Court examined the plaint allegations, particularly paragraph 22, which stated that the plaintiff's interview was conducted at Nagpur, her appointment letter pointed to Nagpur, her entire work was done at Nagpur, and the termination letter was received at Nagpur. The court noted that the defendants had not filed a written statement and that the issue of jurisdiction was to be decided based on the plaint averments. Applying Section 20(c) CPC, the court held that a part of the cause of action arose at Nagpur because the plaintiff was employed and worked there, and the termination became effective upon receipt at Nagpur. The court found no error in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision application with costs of Rs. 5,000.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - Section 20(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant bank, filed a suit for declaration, restoration of service, and damages after her termination. The defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur court, arguing that the termination letter was issued from Mumbai. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the cause of action arose at Nagpur where the plaintiff was interviewed, appointed, worked, and terminated, and where the termination letter was received. Therefore, the Nagpur court had jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC. (Paras 1-6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application (Exhibit 49) challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Nagpur court to try the suit for declaration, restoration of service, and damages arising from termination of employment.

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000. The order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned 26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on Exhibit 49 in Special Civil Suit No. 347 of 2017 is confirmed.

Law Points

Territorial jurisdiction
Cause of action
Section 20(c) CPC
Service termination
Place of employment

Case Details

2026:BHC-NAG:5312

Civil Revision Application No. 04 of 2026

2026-04-06

Rohit W. Joshi

2026:BHC-NAG:5312

Mr. V. V. Bhangde for applicant, Mr. Amit Khare for respondent

HDFC Bank Limited and others

Mrs. Archana w/o Sachin Dongre

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Application challenging order rejecting application for rejection of plaint on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Remedy Sought

The applicants (defendants) sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 26.08.2025 rejecting their application at Exhibit 49, and to dismiss the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Filing Reason

The defendants contended that the Nagpur court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the termination letter was issued from Mumbai.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur) rejected the defendants' application at Exhibit 49 on 26.08.2025.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application challenging territorial jurisdiction based on plaint averments.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicants argued that the termination letter was issued from Mumbai, so only Mumbai courts have jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the cause of action arose at Nagpur where she was employed, worked, and received the termination letter.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 20(c) CPC, a suit can be instituted at a place where the cause of action, or a part thereof, arises. The plaint averments show that the plaintiff was interviewed, appointed, worked, and terminated at Nagpur, and the termination letter was received there. Therefore, a part of the cause of action arose at Nagpur, conferring jurisdiction on the Nagpur court.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Civil Revision Application is filed in order to challenge order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned 26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on application at Exhibit 49 in Special Civil Suit No.347 of 2017. The plaintiff was working with the defendants as Relationship Manager at Nagpur. The entire work was done at Nagpur. The termination letter was received at Nagpur.

Procedural History

The respondent/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 347 of 2017 before the 26th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, for declaration, restoration of service, and damages. The defendants filed an application at Exhibit 49 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC challenging territorial jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application on 26.08.2025. The defendants filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC on an unspecified date. The High Court reserved judgment on 16.03.2026 and delivered it on 06.04.2026.