VIRENDRA KUMAR SETH Vs. SMT. ROOPA SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A suit No. 353 of 1982 was filed by Smt. Roopa Seth against the revisionist, Virendra Kumar Seth for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. The allegations made in the plaint were that Smt. Roopa Seth was married to the revisionist at Aligarh on 30th May, 1978. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, Smt. Roopa Seth was given ornaments and other goods of the value of account Rs. 25,000' - by her brother and these articles were thereafter taken to the house of the revisionist, who resided at Agra. It was further alleged that on 21.07.1979, the Plaintiff opposite party was compelled to leave the house of the revisionist leaving all her ornaments and other articles which were given to her at the time of marriage and that the revisionist did not permit her to take back those articles. After filing, of the suit an objection was taken by the revisionist that the court at Aligarh has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The IIIrd Additional District Judge by an order dated 18th January, 1984 held that a part of cause of action arose at Aligarh and as such the court at Aligarh had jurisdiction relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.1984, the present revision has been filed in this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the provisions of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the facts of the present case and not Section 20 of the Code and the view taken by the court below is manifestly erroneous.

(3.) SECTION 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quoted below: