VIJAYA BANK Vs. KIRAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition at the instance of the second defendant, O.S. No. 6931 of 1980, III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the only question that arises for consideration and decision is whether the City Civil Court at Madras where the suit had been instituted had jurisdiction to entertain the same. On 20th March, 1980, the first respondent, which is a partnership firm, applied for and obtained from the Karnataka Bank, Madras, the second respondent herein, an account payee draft for a sum of Rs. 15,344, payable to one R. Rameshkumar of Bombay, payable at the Bombay Port branch of the Karnataka Bank and sent it by post to the payee. The payee R. Rameshkumar, did not receive the draft sent to him by the first respondent and he had instructed the Bombay Port branch of the Karnataka Bank (the second respondent herein) to stop payment. In turn, on 28th March, 1980, the first respondent instructed the second respondent to stop payment. In the reply sent by the second respondent on 9th April, 1980, the second respondent informed the first respondent that the draft in question had been presented through the petitioner on 27th March, 1980. Thereafter the first respondent went to Bombay and made enquiries which revealed that a new account was opened in the name of one Bathilal Rameshkumar with the petitioner's bank on 25th March, 1980, and the draft had been Presented and collected by the petitioner and further that Rathilal Rameshkumar had also withdrawn from that account on 1st April, 1980 and 2nd April, 1980 two sums of Rs. 12,500 and Rs. 2,500 respectively leaving a negligible balance. The first respondent charged the second respondent Karnataka Bank having acted negligently and against the instructions of the first respondent in that the proceeds of the draft obtained by the first respondent and intended to be paid to R. Rameshkumar had been paid by the second respondent to Rathilal Rameshkumar. According to the first respondent, the second respondent was liable to make good the amounts to the first respondent. Similarly, the first respondent stated that the payee under the draft, R. Rameshkumar did not authorise the petitioner to collect the proceeds of the draft and owing to its negligence and carelessness and in connivance with Rathilal Rameshkumar, the petitioner had opened a new account with the stolen draft in the name of Rathilal Rameshkumar and had negligently collected the proceeds of the draft from the second respondent branch of the Bombay Port intended for R Rameshkumar and had made available the proceeds to Rathilal Rameshkumar. The first respondent therefore, laid the suit against the second respondent and the petitioner impleading them as defendants 1 and 2 and praying for a joint and several decree for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 15,344. being the amount lost by the first respondent and a further sum of Rs. 1,3.0.64 being the interest at 18 per cent. per annum from 20th March, 1980.

(2.) In the written statement filed by thc petitioner, amongst others, an objection was raised that the City Civil Court at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the entire cause of action arose only at Bombay and the Court at Bombay alone had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) In I. A. No. 14352 of 1982, the petitioner prayed that the issue relating to jurisdiction should be tried as a preliminary issue. The first respondent resisted this application by contending that part of the cause of action arose at Madras, and, therefore, the suit was properly laid in the Court at Madras, and that the application for trying the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue was misconceived and unsustainable, as the trial of the suit had commenced earlier.