HARJEET KAUR CHOUDHARY Vs. DASHMESH ARTS (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") had instituted a civil suit (no.CS-8475/16) on 24.01.2013 against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") seeking a decree for recovery of money in the sum of Rs.19,99,500/- with interest pendente lite and future claiming the said amount of money to be due on account of a loan of Rs.14,26,000/- that had been earlier advanced by a bank transfer. The suit was contested by the defendants by written statement taking various defences. It was put to trial on the basis of the issues that were framed, one of the issues (issue no.3) being to address the objection of the defendants as to territorial jurisdiction of the court of the District Judge before whom the suit had been presented. The Additional District Judge to whom the case had been allocated at the conclusion, after recording the evidence of both the sides, by his judgment dated 31.10.2017 rendered decision only on the third issue concerning the objection to the territorial jurisdiction upholding the plea of the defendants and on that basis declined to return any finding on the other issues, resultantly directing return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal, her argument being that the trial court has fallen in error, failing to appreciate that the case was properly made out and presented before the District Judge presiding over the South and South-East district (at that stage a common district) at Saket Courts Complex, in view of the provision contained in Section 20 (c) CPC, reference to Section 20(a) CPC being incorrect.

(3.) It is not disputed that the first defendant is a company having its registered office in the area of Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, which would fall within the jurisdiction of Central civil district of Delhi. The second defendant is also described as a director of the said company, her office address being same as that of the company though she also being an ordinary resident of Gurgaon (in Haryana). Similar is the position of the third defendant, the other two defendants being residents of different parts of Delhi, admittedly areas not falling within the jurisdiction of South and South-East civil district (as existed at the time of presentation of the suit). It is also not disputed that the plaintiff is a resident of Defence Colony, New Delhi, the first defendant having a bank account operational in the area of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, both of which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of South-East civil district of Delhi the case having been decided by an Additional District Judge of South-East civil district.