S. K. BANERJEE Vs. THE SPUN PIPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s. S.K. Benerjee a registered partnership firm and its partners, assails the legality and correctness of an order dtd. 24/2/2010, passed below Exh.8, by 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.561 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner - defendant, inter alia praying to return the plaint to the Court in which, the suit should have been instituted.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are that the respondent - plaintiff, the Spun Pipe and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Vadodara, Gujarat, filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner - defendant, at Vadodara and the same is registered as Special Civil Suit No.561 of 2008. Pursuant to the notice served upon the petitioners, they had filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and also set up a counter-claim in the pleadings. The petitioners herein submitted an application Exh.8, inter alia praying to return the plaint as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 read with Sec. 20 of the CPC. In the application, it was pleaded that the Court at Vadodara has not territorial jurisdiction, as no part of cause of action arose at Vadodara. In this connection, it was stated that the work contract agreement was executed between the parties at Nagpur and work referred in the contract, agreed to be executed by the plaintiff - respondent at Bairagarh, Bhopal (Madhyapradesh). That the petitioners - defendants resides or doing their business at Nagpur. That the cause of action can be said to have partly arisen at Nagpur or Bhopal, but Vadodara Court has no jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose there.

(3.) The learned Trial Court, after hearing the both the sides, vide its order dtd. 24/2/2010, rejected the application and recorded that work was carried out at Vadodara and payment thereof was credited in the bank account of the plaintiff and in such circumstances, the Court at Vadodara would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as part of cause of action arises at Vadodara.