P S KOTHANDARAMA GUPTA Vs. SIDAMSETTY VASANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the Chief Judge City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 15th September, 1966 made in S.C. Suit No 328 of 1965. The suit was instituted on the foot of a promissory note datet 16th June, 1959. The plaintiff in the suit is a resident of Secunderabad while the defendant is a resident of Kolar District. The contention is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,200 from one, Miss C. Sobharani, who was a resident of Madras. The pronote was assigned to the present plaintiff by the said Sobharani at Hyderabad, and therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount.

(2.) The defendant raised a number of contentions. He res1sted the suit inter aha, on the ground that the Court at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there was no privity of contract between him and the endorsee. The lower Court, on a consideration of the arguments advanced before it relying on a decision of this Court in Chittaruvu Radhakrishnamurthy v. Bollapalli Chandrasekhara Rao, 1966 1 An. W.R. 282. held that the Court was competent to entertain the suit It is against this order that this revision is filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court erred in overlooking the decision of the Full Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court in S.Eshwarayya v. Devi Singh, wherein with reference to the Negotiable Instruments Act it has been laid down that only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the note was executed and the defendants reside, that the suit was entertainable. It is to be noted that in the decision in Chittaruvu Radhakrishnamurthy v. Bollapalli Chandrasekhara Rao, the attention of the learned Judge was invited to this decision but the learned Judge did not feel it necessary to consider the case, obviously on the ground that it had no bearing on the facts of that case. On a perusal of the Full Bench decision it is clear that in the said case, the promissory note was executed at Mancherial and the defendant was also a resident of the same place. The suit was filed at Secunderabad, of which place the plaintiff was a resident. The issue before the Court was whether the Court had erred in entertaining the suit. Having regard to the provisions of section 20, Civil Procedure Code, it was held that it was the Court at Mancherial which had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This was also upheld by the Full Bench in the decision cited above. The learned Judge in the subsequent case, namely, Chittaruvu Radhakrishnamurthy v. Bollapalli Chandrasekhara Rao, was dealing with the case of the assignment. He, therefore, rightly refused to consider the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court as it did not have a direct bearing on the facts. Similar is the position in the instant case. Here admittedly, the assignment was made at Hyderabad, and in accordance with section 20, Civil Procedure Code, the cause of action wholly or in part arises in Hyderabad. What constitutes cause of action ' has been the subject- matter of numerous cases, the leading case is Read v. Brown, which has been frequently referred to in various cases of this Court. It has been held therein that the assignment would constitute a part of the cause of action and the Court within whose jurisdiction the assignment took place would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.