HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOLS LTD Vs. VIJAY LUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 25.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No.50/2006, whereby the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to direct return of the plaint to the plaintiff for filing of the same in an appropriate court inasmuch as, the learned Additional District Judge has come to a finding that nothing has been shown by the appellant as to how the suit filed by him in Delhi cannot be tried by a court in Delhi, particularly, when the defendant is a resident of Kolkata.

(2.) The appellant filed a suit for recovery of `3,87,379/- against the respondent by making an averment that the order for supply of goods was placed by the respondent at Delhi and part payments were also made in Delhi. The relevant averments made by the appellant in this regard in the plaint are contained in paragraph 13 of the plaint, the same reads as under:-

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent by filing a written statement by taking the preliminary objections that the suit is hopelessly barred by time; that the appellant wrote a letter to respondent on 9/9/2005 for recovery of `3,78,665/- which was alleged to be due and outstanding from respondent since November 2002; that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the respondent is residing at Kolkata (West Bengal). On merits, respondent denied about appellants supplying the goods to the respondent on credit basis from time to time as per demands and orders placed by the respondent. Respondent specifically denied that there were any specific orders for supply of goods; that appellant has not placed even a single bill to substantiate its allegations. Respondent further denied that the running account of the appellant was maintained as per the procedure established under law; respondent denied about any outstanding due, however, receipt of notice was admitted by the respondent. Rest of the allegations leveled by the appellant were also denied by the respondent.