FIDA HUSEIN MAHOMEDALI ANTELAWALA Vs. GOKALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come in appeal challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff at Godhra should have been filed at Akola and not at Godhra. The learned Judge held that the contract between the parties was completed at Akola and not at Godhra.

(2.) The contract between the parties which was alleged in the plaint was a contract to pay the plaintiff brokerage of 2% on the price of the property to be purchased by defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 purchased a factory and he was therefore obliged to pay 2 commission on that price. He therefore filed a suit at Godhra.

(3.) Section 20 of the Code of Civil procedures which is material provides among other things that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. A cause of action is a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit. It does not mean all relevant facts which may be proved but it refers to the essential facts which have got to be proved by the plaintiff before he can succeed in the suit. In a suit for the breach of a contract the factum of the contract and the factum of the breach of the contract are both material facts in issue.