MOHAN SINGH Vs. LAJYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a questions upon the interpretation of the expression "resides" appearing in Section 20, Civil P. C.

(2.) THE plaintiff is one Lajya Ram, a broker of Lahore while the defendants are Mr. M. S. Oberoi, director of Oberoi Hotels Limited, and Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal, a well-known contractor of the punjab. In the year 1946 Mr. Oberoi expressed a desire to purchase the Nedous Hotel at Lahore from Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal and requested the plaintiff to negotiate the purchase. The plaintiff brought the parties together and induced the owner to enter into an agreement for the sale of the property for a large sum of money. Mr. Oberot refused to purchase the property and the transaction could not be completed, the defendants declined to pay the commission to which the plaintiff considered himself entitled and the plaintiff accordingly brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 79,500/ -.

(3.) THE defendant objected to the Jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to deal with the case, but the trial Court came to the conclusion that although no part of the cause of action had arisen in delhi, Mr. Oberoi had been residing in Delhi not merely temporarily but for sufficiently long periods, that he had been carrying on business in Delhi and that he was personally working for gain in Delhi. The Court accordingly permitted the plaintiff to bring the suit in Delhi not only against Mr. Oberoi against whom substantial relief was claimed but also against Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal who is said to be residing in the Punjab. The defendants are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in revision.