Writ Petition Maintainable At Lucknow Seat If A Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Within The Areas Of 'Oudh': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas.

It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.

Now, in the instant case, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will lie at the Lucknow seat even if the petitioners allege that only a part of the cause of action arose within the areas of Oudh. 

In other words, the court held that matters falling outside Oudh areas could very well be dealt with by the Lucknow seat of the High Court if only a part of the cause of action arises within the areas known as Oudh areas.

Here, it is also important to note that in total 3 Mandals form part of the Oudh Areas: Lucknow Mandal, Ayodhya Mandal and Gonda Mandal. It means that all the districts falling under three mandals are part of the Oudh Areas.

These districts are: Barabanki, Faizabad/Ayodhya, Sultanpur, Hardoi, Rae Bareli, Pratapgarh, Unnao, Gonda, Bahraich, Balrampur, Shravasti, Sitapur, Ambedkar Nagar, Amethi and Lakhimpur Kheri.

The case in brief

Petitioners had taken a loan from the respondent bank at Lucknow. Thereafter, the recovery proceedings were initiated by the respondent Bank at Lucknow. The petitioners moved the Securitisation Application before the DRT at Lucknow and the DRT passed an interim order dated in April 2022 in favor of the petitioners.

Now, this very order was vacated by means of the order passed by the DRT at Lucknow in May 2022. In furtherance of the aforesaid order, the SDM concerned sent a letter on June 6, 2022 to the Inspector, Incharge of the Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow for taking possession of the petitioners' property situated at Lucknow.

Now, the petitioners challenged the order dated before the DRAT at Allahabad and they moved the HC being aggrieved by the order of DRAT (passed on May 20, 2022) whereby the matter has been posted for JUly 28, 2022. 

It was their case that order vacating the stay was passed hastily, without application of mind and that it would result in the petitioners' property being taken away without adjudication of the respective rights of the parties.

Before the Court, a preliminary objection was raised that since the DRAT is situated in Prayagraj (outside the Oudh area) and therefore, the Lucknow seat wouldn't have the juridiction to deal with the instant plea of the petitioners and the Allahabad HC at Prayagraj shall have the jurisditction.

Court's observations 

The Court primarily relied upon the ruling of the apex court in the case of Nasiruddin vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1975 (2) SCC 671, wherein it was categorically held thus:

"38… If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad…."

The Court noted that in the instant case, though the petitioners were challenging DRAT's order passed in Prayagraj, however, the bundle of facts leading to the filing of the instant Writ Petition made it clear that a cause of action did arise within the Oudh area.

"...the petitioners' had taken a loan from the respondent no. 3 Bank situated at Lucknow, for recovery of the aforesaid amount the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow passed an order on 28.03.2022 for taking possession of the petitioners' property situated at Lucknow, in an appeal filed by the petitioners the DRT sitting at Lucknow had passed an interim order on 28-04-2022 and the same has been vacated on 02-05-2022 at Lucknow. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cause of action for approaching this Court, or at least a part thereof, has not accrued to the petitioners at Lucknow..."

Further, the Court observed that though the order vacating stay was challenged before the DRAT Allahabad, however, the alternative remedy available before the DRAT had proved not to be an efficacious remedy as the matter had been posted for further hearing on July 27, 2022, even though the relief was required to be given immediately.

Consequently, the order of the DRT passed on May 2, 2022, was quashed and the order dated 28-04-2022 passed by the DRT in the matter was revived and the order granting interim relief was directed to remain in operation till a final order is passed after the conclusion of arguments of the parties.

Appearances:

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Khare,Pritish Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300

Click Here To Read/Download Order