ASGAR ALLY AND CO Vs. VUPPALA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit on a preliminary point of jurisdiction.

(2.) The two reasons given by the learned Judge for dismissing the suit are: (1) that no part of the fraud alleged in the plaint arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and (2) that the fact that execution of the decree obtained in Suit No. 48 of 1949 of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Vizagapatam by this Court after the same had been transferred to this Court for execution was not sufficient to attract jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) The material facts of this case may be briefly stated. The defendants instituted a suit against the plaintiffs being Suit No. 48 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vizagapatam for the recovery of Rs. 98,864-1-4 with interest. In fact defendant Vuppala Satyanarayana being the defendant No. 2 in this case sued alleging himself as the head and manager of the joint family property purporting to consist of himself, his sons and grandsons. He obtained an ex parte decree from the Subordinate Judge's Court of Vizagapattam in that suit on the 21st of December, 1949. Thereafter, the decree "was transferred to this Court for execution and in fact applications in execution were made in this Court. Two applications were made. One was for attachment of the sum of Rs. 2,500 payable by Mohammad Osman Bros. to the judgment-debtor firm in Suit No. 3544 of 1950 (Asgar Ally and Co. v. Mohammad Usman Bros.) now lying in the hands of Mr. R. C. Kar, Solicitor of No. 7, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta. The other application in execution was for the oral examination of the judgment-debtors, Asgar Ally and Feroze in Court under Order XXI, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for direction on them to attend this Court with books of account of Messrs. Asgar Ally and Co. for the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950. We direct that the two original applications for execution be treated as part of this appeal. The defendant in his pleadings himself refers to the records and proceedings of the said execution case in para. 6 of the written statement in the suit. It is then that the present plaintiffs protested.