MADAN LAL Vs. CHAWLA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of money.

(2.) The plaintiff opposite party is a joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It used to carry on its business in the N. W. F Province and after partition of India its business was shifted to Dehra Dun. The defendant-applicant had opened a cash credit account with the company at its branch at Kohat in Pakistan. The defendant also migrated to India and is living at Jullunder. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of the sum due from the defendant applicant on the basis of the cash credit account, at Dehra Dun, the place where the company now carries on business. It was alleged by the plaintiff company that there was no specific place of payment mentioned in the contract between the parties and as such it was the duty of the debtor to find his creditor and so the court at Dehra Dun had jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant contested the suit and one of the preliminary issues raised by him was that the suit was not cognizable by the court at Dehra Dun. The trial court held that the suit was not cognizable by it and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate court which held that the suit was cognizable at Dehra Dun in the trial court and consequently it allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Court below for decision on the merits. Against this order the defendant has come up in re-vision to this Court.

(3.) The agreement for cash credit account was executed by the defendant on 3-9-1948, at Kohat in Pakistan. No specific place for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff company was mentioned in the agreement, but the fact remains that the money was advanced at Kohat at the branch of the plaintiff company and payments from time to time were also made by the defendant-applicant at Kohat. No payments were made at Dehra Dun. The plain-tiff company after it had shifted to India notified to the defendant-applicant that payment should be made at Dehra Dun, but no payment was made by the defendant. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit at Dehra Dun.