MADAN GANPATRAO BABAR Vs. KSHETRAPAL FINANCE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE applicant challenges the order, dated 27-7-2000, passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli in Special Civil Suit 142 of 2000, answering the issue pertaining to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in the affirmative, the trial Court by the impugned order has directed the return of the plaint for the purpose of presentation thereof in a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same. The issue regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was answered in the affirmative on two grounds, namely (i) that the respondent has no subordinate office at Sangli, and (ii) Clause 16 of the agreement between the parties provides for the jurisdiction of the Courts in Belgaum for any dispute arising out of or under the agreement between the parties.

(3.) THE applicant obtained a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the respondent for the purchase of a mini bus and the said loan was granted on execution of various documents, including the agreement between the parties in relation to the terms and conditions of repayment as well as hypothecation of the said mini bus in favour of the respondent towards the security for repayment of the loan amount. It is the case of the applicant that sometime in January, 2000 some repairs were required to be carried out to the mini bus and therefore the same was sent to a garage at Sangli. It is further case of the applicant that while the vehicle was at Ankli Phata in Sangli, some of the employees of the respondent forcibly took away the said vehicle from the applicant. The applicant thereafter filed a criminal case as well as the present suit. Consequent to the service of summons in the suit, the respondent herein raised a preliminary objection in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Sangli to entertain the suit. The objection was two- fold. Firstly, all the agreements between the parties were executed at Belgaum and in accordance with the terms of the agreements, dispute, if any, regarding the vehicle could be raised before any Court at Belgaum and the respondent-company having no office at Sangli and its business being at Ainapur within district of Belgaum, the jurisdiction vest in the Court at Athani, District Belgaum, and secondly, in terms of the explanation clause to Section 20, the cause of action can be said to have arisen only at Belgaum. The trial Court proceeded to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit and after hearing the parties, held that the Court at Sangli does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit by the impugned order.