STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJA RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow, defendants, against the order, dated 3-12-1962 of the Civil Judge of Varanasi, allowing the appeal of Raja Ram Lal, plaintiff, and thereby holding that me present suit was cognizable by the Courts at Varanasi.

(2.) THE plaintiff was employed as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was first of all appointed to this post on October 18, 1945, but his services were terminated on October 21, 1950. He was re-employed on 12-10-1951, and his services were again terminated with effect from 5-7-1958. THE plaintiff is a resident of Varanasi, and during his two terms of service was not employed there. THE plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of arrears of salary and the arrears of travelling allowances and also for the refund of the security of Rs. 500 furnished by him.

(3.) ON the first point it was contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the general rule that a debtor must seek his creditor cannot be made applicable to Government and hence the suit could not be instituted at the place of residence of the plaintiff. The Courts of law can make a departure from the general rule only in a case where there was an agreement, oral or in writing, that the security money shall be refunded at a particular place; but if there was no contract as to the place of payment, the general rule can be made applicable, namely, that the amount would be refundable to the creditor at the place of his residence. The security money is, under certain circumstances, refundable to the person who furnished the security and when there exists a dispute and the security amount is not refunded, it becomes an amount payable and converts the parties into debtor and creditor. A similar view was taken in Champaklal Mohanlal v. Nectar Tea Co., AIR 1933 Bom 179.