J.N. SAHNI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (sic) revision petition by the Defendant arises out (sic) filed by the State of Madhya Bharat, as processor of the former Gwalior State, for the (sic) of Rs. 1,85,000/ - together with interest (sic).

(2.) ONE of the grounds on which the Defendant has contested the suit is that the Court of District Judge, Gwalior has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the Defendant resides and carries on business at Delhi and never undertook to pay the debt at Gwalior, and because the whole transaction took place at Delhi where the promissory note was executed and delivered to the Finance Member of the Gwalior State. The Additional District Judge held that as the pro -note did not specify the place where the payment was to be made, the English Common Law Rule that the debtor must seek the creditor would apply and, therefore, a part of the cause of action must be held to have arisen in Gwalior where the Plaintiff State "resided". He relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in 'Tulsiman Bidi v. Abdul Latif' : AIR 1936 Cal 97 (A) and the decision of the Lahore High Court in 'Nanumal v. Firm Shibbamal Nandkishore', AIR 1939 Lah 18 (B).

(3.) IT is common ground that the promissory note in suit was executed and delivered at Delhi And that it does not specify the place where it is payable. The main question raised by this revision petition is whether the Common Law rule that a debtor must seek his creditor is applicable in the case of a promissory note payable on demand.