SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. JOGDHIAN TILAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under S. 20, Civil Procedure Code . the territorial jurisdiction of the court could be determined on the basis if 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 as per cl. (a) and as per cl. (c) on the basis of the cause of action, wholly or in part arising within the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff has no doubt set up the case that a part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi inasmuch as the payments have been made at Delhi and some acknow- ledgment has been sent on behalf of deft. No. 1 to the pff. at Delhi, that amount deposited by the pff. was also payable at Delhi. But these facts can only be decided after framing of issues. The pff. wants this court to have jurisdiction of this case also on the basis of cl. (b) of S. 20, which lays down that where in in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, any of the defts where there are more than one, at the time of commeneement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carriers on business or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given, or the defts. who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution. This cl. (b) is independent of clauses (a) and (c) of S. 20. In the present case the leave of the court is sought by the pff. by taking resort to cl (b). In order to determine whether leave should be granted against deft. No. 4 when admittedly all other defts 2, 3, 5 to 7 are not only residing in Delhi, the court should see that the leave is not granted in any arbitrary manner; it has to be granted on some sound principles. It is obvious that while granting the leave, the court has to consider the convenience of most of the parties and also keep in view the facts arising for decision in the case. It is evident that if cause of action wholly or in part arises within the jurisdiction of Delhi courts, no leave of the court is required (See Tahilram v. Maghanmal, AIR 1929 Sind 170). This was evident also from bare perusal of S. 20 of the Code. In B.G. Guttal v. R.R. Diwakar, AIR 1977 Kar. 211, it was held by a Division Bench of the said High Court that the principle to be borne in mind while granting or refusing leave of the court u/s 20(b) is that those defendants should not be unduly troubled and the suit be instituted at a place where they are able to defend themselves. It was laiddown in this judgment that the principle to be borne in mind while granting or refusing leave of the court under the above provision as stated by the Supreme Court in U.O.I, v. Ladulal Jain, AIR 1963 SC i681 is that those defts. should not be unduly troubled and the suit be instituted at a place where they are able to defend themselves. I entirely agree with the principle enunciated in this judgment.

(2.) So the question to be considered is whether deft. No. 4 would be put to any inconvenience or hardship in defending the suit at Delhi or not. If we keep the pleadings of the parties in view, it is evident that deft. No. 4 as well as the other defts. 5 and 6 have taken up a plea that no money had been deposited by the pff. with deft. No. 1 and the account books of deft. No. 1 are lying with defts 2 and 3 and that account books have been manipulated. So it is not understood how deft No. 4 could be in inconvenience in facing trial at Delhi. His three brothers, defts. 5 to 7 are based in Delhi and are hotly contesting the suit on the same type of defences as have been raised by deft. No. 4. So it cannot be said that granting leave to the pff. in the present case, any prejudice would be caused to deft. No, 4 in facing trial at Delhi. Hence I find that it is a fit case for granting the leave as prayed for. I allow the application and grant the leave. Hon'ble R.N. Pyne, C.J. & P.N. Nag, 3. C.W. 838/90 D /11.9.90 Hans Raj vs. Union of India Adv. S.C. Jindal Adv. Ashok Gurnani Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 If an Indian returning from foreign country brings with him a portable generator bought more than an year back, benefit of TR Roles cannot be denied on the ground that the item appears to be absolutely new. Customs Act, Ss. 77 to 80. Bonafide baggage includes house bold effects which are exempt and a generator even if used only for picnic purpose remains household item. [Ed. facts : Petitioner was private Secy in Indian Embassy in Japan On completion of 3 years he returned to India in July, 88. He had brought with him a music system and a portable generator and claimed same to be house hold items not liable to duty. Asstt. Collector & Collector in appeal thought otherwise. In revision, Govt. allowed his plea about music system but about generator, it held that item appeared absolutely new and hence was not exempt. Petitioner filed W.P.

(3.) We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and are of the opinion that the approach of the revisional authority has been wholly erroneous in the eyes of law which has resulted in the manifest injustice to the petitioner and such a finding, therefore, deserves to be set aside.