C P SADANANDAN Vs. FRIDGE HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the second defendant and first respondent the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 the other defendants in O.S.200/04 on the file of Sub court, Kozhikod. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs.1,10,000/- allegedly due from defendants in respect of purchases made on credit basis. Case of plaintiff in the plaint was that plaintiff is the authorised dealer of refrigerators and other home appliances and defendants used to purchase refrigerators and home appliances on credit from the plaintiff firm and credit facility was given to defendants because they are known in the business transaction. Only second defendant contested the suit. Second defendant was sued as one of the partners of the first defendant firm M/s.Lilly & Lilly, Sulthan Bathery. Defendants are all residents of either Thalassery or Sulthan Bathery. Second defendant contended that Sub Court, Kozhikod has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as transaction was entered into at Sulthan Bathery. As per finding dated 1.11.06 learned Sub Judge found that Sub Court, Kozhikod has territorial jurisdiction and posted the case for trial on other issues. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent plaintiff were heard.

(3.) The arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that learned Sub Judge has relied on the documents produced by plaintiff and on the basis of the documents held that partners of first defendant firm had another firm namely Essar Agencies and Essar Agencies used to place orders on behalf of first defendant firm and relying on the signature of 4th defendant in a letter dated 16.11.1999 found that he is the Managing Partner of first defendant firm and therefore court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned counsel argued that without oral evidence learned Sub Judge should not have relied on the said documents, to find that Sub Court, Kozhikod has territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that in the plaint itself it was pleaded that the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Sub Court, Kozhikod and in such circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with the finding.