SOMAN Vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised by Shri N. Dharmadan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in this Second Appeal arising from a concurrent verdict for payment of balance purchase price to the respondents is lack of territorial jurisdiction for the trial court to entertain the suit.

(2.) The 1st respondent is a Company represented by its Branch Manager, the 2nd respondent. According to the respondents, the appellant purchased a lift from the 1st respondent as per Ext.A1, agreement dated 14.07.1999 for Rs.5.5 lakhs. The lift was meant to be installed in the hotel of the appellant at Kottarakkara. The agreement stipulated that 75% of the purchase price was to be paid in advance along with the purchase order while 15% was to be paid at the time of delivery of the lift. The remaining 10% was to be paid after installation of the lift. According to the respondents, earth work and connected works for installation of the lift were to be done by the appellant. On 14.07.1997, at the time of execution of Ext.A1, agreement the appellant paid Rs.4,12,500/- being 75% of the price. Appellant did not make the site suitable for installation of the lift within time. Though beyond the time, the lift was installed in the hotel of the appellant at Kottarakkara to his satisfaction. The balance sum of Rs.1,37,500/- is due to the respondents. In spite of demands, appellant did not pay the amount. Hence the respondents filed O.S. No.338 of 2001 in the court of learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram claiming that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that court where the transaction took place.

(3.) Appellant resisted the suit on various grounds including that learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Another contention raised is that the lift was defective, it was not functioning properly and on account of that, the appellant suffered loss.