SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for :

(2.) Defendant No. 2 is the proforma defendant and the actual contesting defendant is defendant No. 1-bank. Such bank, as described by the plaintiff, has its regional office at 107/1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016, within the jurisdiction of this court. No leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been sought for by the plaintiff for having part of the cause of action in the said office. Therefore, it can be presumed, at this stage, that the plaintiff proceeded as if the said office has nexus and connection with the cause of action.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by. taking various defences. Broadly, the plaintiff has no claim against the defendant as this court has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try or determine the suit since no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction. The Khidirpore Branch office of the defendant has or had a dealing and transaction with the plaintiff and against that branch the plaintiff has made the claims. Such written statement has been verified by one Shri Bijoy Kumar Gupta, Assistant General Manager of the bank. It also appears that the verification was signed in the office at 107/1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016. Affidavit of documents was also affirmed by the deponent from such office. Issues were suggested and ultimately the following issues were framed :