ANAGRAM FINANCE LTD Vs. SUNIL RAMDEO SIKEHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner inter alia for a declaration that he is owner of a vehicle which he purchased in pursuance of the loan advanced to him by the petitioner. He also sought a declaration that the petitioner has no right to effect seizure of the vehicle which apparently the petitioner has already done. In the suit, the respondent also appears to have sought an injunction directing the return of the vehicle purchased by him under hire purchase agreement entered into with the petitioner.

(3.) In this suit, the petitioner has raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court at Amravati where the suit in question is instituted. The evidence was led. The Court at Amravati relying on Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure came to the conclusion that the said provision allows the plaintiff to bring the suit either in the Court at the place where the contract was made or in a place it was performed. According to Trial Court, in the present suit both the agreements were made and performed at Amravati.