MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR Vs. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where does a person "actually and voluntarily reside" Can a person employed abroad and residing there in connection with his employment be said to be residing actually and voluntarily at the place where he has his permanent residence in India as to attract territorial jurisdiction of a civil suit Is there any change in law after the dropping of the 1st Explanation in Section 20 of the CPC These interesting questions arise for consideration in this case.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order on issue No. 1 in O.S. No. 58/02 passed by the Subordinate Judge. Attingal. There is no dispute on the fundamental facts. The plaintiff and the defendant are both employed in Saudi Arabia. Both of them have their place of permanent residence in India. A promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 8.5.99 at Saudi Arabia. The amount due under the promissory note has not been paid and discharged. The plaintiff had, in these circumstances, come to India and had filed the suit on the date of reopening after midsummer vacation in 2002 claiming the amount due under the said promissory note.

(3.) The defendant/the petitioner herein entered appearance and resisted the suit. He contended that both the plaintiff and the defendant were residing abroad on the date of execution of the demand promissory note and till the filing of the suit. In these circumstances,, under Section 20 of the C.P.C., the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it was asserted. An issue was raised regarding jurisdiction and this issue was considered and answered against defendant by the court in the impugned order.