VIJAY NAVNITLAL SHAH Vs. AMICHAND BHAGWANJIBHAI HINDOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter be referred to as "the CPC") has been preferred by the applicant herein - original defendant of Special Civil Suit No.70 of 2010 pending before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court") against the order dated 18.01.2019 passed below Exhibit 69, whereby, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the defendant to recall the original plaintiff for further cross- examination.

(2.) It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.31,38,084/- against him on the basis of Asafetida on jangad basis and the amount has not been paid by the defendant. It is contended that as per the allegation, the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant, but no payment was made by the defendant and on the basis of that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount wherein the defendant has appeared through his advocate and filed his written statement on various grounds which includes non-maintainability of the suit as no cause of action has arisen at Rajkot and the Trial Court at Rajkot has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. He has averred that the plaintiff has filed the First Information Report before Navi Mumbai Police against the defendant for committing fraud and the plaintiff himself has chosen jurisdiction of Mumbai Court and, therefore, the Special Civil Suit filed at Rajkot is not maintainable. It is contended that during recordings of evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself at Exhibit 21 and learned advocate for the defendant has cross-examined him. Now, in place of earlier advocate, the new advocate has been engaged by him. He has contended that as new advocate was engaged by the defendant, he has carefully gone through the entire file of the case and his advocate has submitted an application at Exhibit 69 stating therein that the plaintiff is not cross-examined on the point of cause of action at Rajkot, regarding written or oral contract between parties from non-joinder of necessary parties or whether both firms are proprietary firms or whether it was filed individual capacity.

(3.) Heard Ms.Devangi Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. Though, notice is duly served to the opponent, nobody has appeared on his behalf.