D RAJESWARI Vs. ANUMULASETTI RAGHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the defendants 1 and 2 is directed against the order of Principal District Munsif, Guntur holding that part of the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit has arisen at Guntur.

(2.) The brief and material facts leading to this revision be stated: The petitioners filed M. C. No. 11/66 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate's Court, Kalvakurthi claiming maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the 1st petitioner was legally wedded to the respondent in November 1960 at Sirsangandla temple 'situated in Mahaboobnagar district and the second petitioner is their chaild. The summons sent to the espondent by the Munsif Magistrate Kalvakurthi in M. C. No. 11/66 was served on the respondent on 6-8-1966 at Guntur where he was working as an Assistant Surgeon. Subsequently the respondent herein filed O.S.No. 619/67 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif. Guntur for declaration that the 1st defendant was not his legally wedded wife and that the 2nd defendant was not born to him through the 1st defendant and for an injunction restraining them from claiming It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was first made aware of the allegation that he married the 1st defendant and that the 2nd defendant was their child, only at the time of service of Ex A. 4 at Guntur and hence the cause of action partly arose at Guntur A written statement was filed by the defendants contending inter alia that it is only the Kalvakurthi Munsif Magistrate's Court but not the Guntur Munsif's court that had territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as no cause of action had arisen at Guntur. At. the request of the defendants, this issue relating to the question of territorial jurisdiction was sought to be taken up as a preliminary issue and the same was taken up and decided against the petitioner Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Sri Dwarakeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that no cause of action has arisen at Guntur and hence the suit in the District Munsif's Court, Guntur must be rejected on that ground alone. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy the learned conusel for the respondent contended contra.