K. J. CHACKO Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner (plaintiff) filed O. S.84 of 1990 before the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam for a prohibitory injunction restraining the first respondent Bank (first defendant) from releasing any amount to the second respondent (second defendant) covered by the Bank Guarantees furnished by the Bank. The Sub Judge ordered the return of the plaint on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit. A. S.34 of 1991 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the District Judge.

(2.) The Sub Judge construing Ext. A1 agreement and Ext. A2 Bank Guarantee held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as these documents specifically mentioned that the Courts in the City of Madras alone shall have jurisdiction over any dispute between the parties. Contention of the plaintiff is that the suit is not based on Ext. A1 agreement and as no relief is sought against the second defendant and as the first defendant is not a party to Ext. A1 Agreement the suit is really maintainable before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The learned District Judge held that the averments in the plaint would show that the reliefs sought for in the suit are in relation to a dispute arising from Ext A 1 agreement and so the Sub Judge's finding does not warrant interference.

(3.) In A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A. P. Agencies, Salem ( AIR 1989 SC 1239 ) the Supreme Court held thus: