INDIAN BANK Vs. RAMASWAMY L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which is common to these five appeals, that arises for determination is as to whether the Court at Bangalore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the five suits out of which the aforesaid appeals have arisen.

(2.) It is unnecessary to detail all the facts, as it would suffice to take notice only of such acts as will directly bear upon the question aforesaid. These facts which are not in dispute, can be stated thus : Indian Bank with its Head Office at Madras, the appellant in all the aforesaid five appeals, was the plaintiff in all the suits. It had sanctioned a loan of Rs.60,000 to Defendant-1, a repatriate from Burma, his application for such loan, having been sponsored by Deft-5-the Repatriates Co-op Finance Development Bank Ltd, Madras, of which Defts-1 to 4 were members. Each defendant is joined as one of the defendants to. all the separate five suits filed against them. The plaintiff-Bank had forwarded the said application of Deft-1 alcng with the 'sanction ticket' to its Branch Office at Bangalore, with a direction to pay the loan amount to Deft-1. The loan amount thus came to be paid to Deft-1 at Bangalore, after a hypothecation deed had been executed by Deft-1 on 18-6-1970. The promissory note had been executed at Madras on 15-6-1970 by Deft-1 to which Defts-2 to 4 had also joined. A deed of guarantee was also executed at Madras on 15th June 1970 by Deft-5 binding itself to the plaintiff-Bank to pay one-third of the undischarged loan along with interest thereon. Deft-1 and his co-obligants- Defts-2 to 4, were to re-pay the Joan amount in 30 equal instalments of Rs.2,000 each with interest thereon at Bangalore Branch. Certain instalments were so paid by Deft-1. But, thereafter Deft-1 having defaulted in performing his part of the contract in regard to the re-payment of the loan amount, this led the plaintiff-Bank to file the aforesaid five separate suits against Defts-1 to 4 and Deft-5. The defendants of the other suits were jcined to each suit as co-defendants.

(3.) Only Defts-1 to 5 conlested the said five suits, while the others were proceeded ex parte. The aforesaid two defendants, in their respective written statements, had admitted the facts narrated above and which had been alleged by the piaintiff-Bank in its plaint. They, however, inter alia, raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court which led to the raising of an issue by the trial Court regarding its territorial jurisdiction which forms the issue No.4. The trial Court treated. the said issue as a preliminary one and a finding adverse to the pjaintiff thereon led to the passing of the order under appeals which required the returning of the plaint to. the plaintiff for being presented to a competent Court.