STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SABCO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal against the order of the trial Court holding that the suit was not maintainable and directing return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) THE appellant filed T.M.S. No. 89 of 1992 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, with the following prayers : '26. The plaintiff therefore prays : (a) that a decree for Rs. 1,59,214.32 (Rupees one lakh fiftynine thousand two hundred fourteen and paise thirty -two only) may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and jointly and severally together pendente lite and future interest. On the said sum of Rs. 86,135.79 (Rupees eighty -six thousand one hundred thirty -five and paise seventy -nine only) at the rate of 15.5%per annum and on Rs. 73,078,53 (Rupees Seventy three thousand seventy -eight and paise fifty -three only) at the rate of 17.25% per annum with quarterly rest. (b) that on failure of the defendants to pay the decretal dues within the time stipulated in the decree by the Honourable Court, a decree may be passed for the sell of the mortgaged properties in Schedule 'B' of the plaint and the sale proceeds of the same may be ordered to be adjusted towards payment of the decretal dues and in case of the said sale proceeds are found insufficient or the mortgaged properties or any part or portion thereof are not available for sale, the other properties of the defendants be ordered to be sold for realisation of the decretal dues. (c) that the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff And (d) any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled in law and enquiry may be also decreed in favour of the plaintiff.'

(3.) THE trial Court relying upon the provisions contained in Section 16(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the 'C.P.C.') and the decision reported in AIR 1978 Kerala, 209 (Mrs. Rosy Joseph and Ors. v. Union of India), held that since the suit was one for foreclosure on the basis of a mortgage and since the property mortgaged was admittedly situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Rairangpur Court, the suit was not maintainable in Rairangpur Court, the suit was not maintainable in Rairangpur Court and accordingly, it directed that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.