SHRIKANT GUPTA Vs. SUBODH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the trial Court whereby the application of the petitioners for the dismissal of the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction was dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT-SUBODH Kumar Gupta filed suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh against Shrikant Gupta and others for rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm known as "rajaram and Brothers". The factory of the firm is situated at Mohow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh ). Its Head Office is at Bombay. Plaintiff is also seeking partition of the assets as well as decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transacting any business, collecting any money, operating any account etc and to use the name and style of the firm "rajaram and Brothers". After service, defendant No. 1, namely. Shrikant Gupta made an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for the dismissal of suit being beyond jurisdiction for the Court at Chandigarh. In the application, it was stated that according to the facts disclosed in the plaint and perusal of the prayer made therein clearly indicate that the plaintiff is seeking rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm situated at Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh ). According to defendant No. 1 cause of action, if any has arisen at no other place than Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh ). According to him, the business of the firm is carried on at Mandsaur and accounts are also prepared and maintained at Mandsaur. Property of the partnership firm is s tuated at Mandsaur having its Head Office at Bombay and according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it is the Civil Court at Mandsaur which has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for dissolution of the firm. It was further stated that the partners of the partnership firm are re siding at Mandsaur, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chandigarh. It was thus prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed as being not maintainable at Chandigarh as neither any business, office, employee or any property nor any bank account is at Chandigarh. Plaintiff filed reply to the application and submitted that the application cannot be decided before filing of the written statement by the defendants. Trial Court dismissed the application after finding that a part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, after reading the plaint in extense, contended that the Civil Court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The precise submission was that neither the defendants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Chandigarh nor the property of the partnership firm is situated with,- In the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Chandigarh where the suit has been filed.