HANUMAN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. J. MITHYLESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 23/7/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be allowed.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant preferred the underlying civil suit for recovery of Rs.10.00 lacs along with interest, claiming that he had provided a friendly loan of Rs.10.00 lacs to the respondent. It was averred that the said sum was transferred from the appellants account maintained with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Savita Vihar Branch, Delhi. The appellant had further claimed that towards discharge of its liability to pay the said amount, the respondent had issued cheque no. 000072 dtd. 3/3/2016 for Rs.10.00 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank, Bellari Branch, Karnataka. The said cheque, when presented by the appellant at his bank in Delhi, got dishonoured. Claiming jurisdiction at Delhi, the appellant had sought recovery of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) While contesting the impugned order, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the respondents application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC without appreciating that the respondent had not taken any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court in the written statement; as such, no issue was framed on the said aspect. The application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be filed subsequently, and moreover, while there were a total of four suits filed by the appellant with respect to four different loan transactions, in the remaining suits where the loan was extended through cash/RTGS, similar applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to dismissed; however, in the present case, for no good reason, such an application was allowed. Learned counsel has further referred to Sec. 21 CPC to claim jurisdiction at Delhi.