Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit against the
respondents for recovery of certain money based on a contract.

As per the admitted plaint averments,
the office of the defendants is located in Pargi,
the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi,
the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was
executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.

 According to the petitioner, as the acceptance of the
contract made by the respondents was received by him at
Malkajgiri, the Court at Malkajgiri has territorial jurisdiction.


The lower Court while returning the plaint has observed
that the ingredients of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure
are not satisfied as the place of work or business of the
respondents does not fall within its jurisdiction or that the
property in respect of which the contract has been executed is
also not situated within its jurisdiction.
A further observation
was made that though initially the petitioner has not mentioned
in the plaint as to on which date and where he accepted the
tender, a plea was subsequently added to the effect that he has
accepted the tender from his residence only to create the cause
of action to the Court at Malkajgiri.
        Under Section 20 C.P.C. every suit shall be instituted in a
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a)     the defendant, or each of the defendants, where there
are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain; or
(b)     any of the defendants, where there are more than one,
at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually
and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, provided that in such case
either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants
who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally
work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or
(c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The settled legal
position is that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract,
the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted
and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of
action arises at the place where such termination order is
received. 
Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a
contract and not on termination of the contract. The offer of the
petitioner was accepted at Pargi and the contract was made at
Pargi.
It is also not in dispute that the contract work is executed
within the jurisdiction of Court at Pargi. Consequently, it is only
Court at Pargi which has jurisdiction. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.