GURMIT KAUR Vs. DHANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit in forma pauperis on 3.11.1982 alleging that the defendant-respondent and her son took an amount of Rs. 7,800/- from them for sending appellant No. 2 to foreign country but they failed to do so. She also did not return the amount received by her. On 1.3.1981, the respondent in the presence of respectables executed agreement Exhibit P.1 undertaking to pay Rs. 7,800/- to the appellants upto 6.4.1981. She however, failed to pay the amount. Thus, a prayer was made for a decree for the recovery of the said amount. The respondent pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. She also alleged that the agreement Exhibit P.1 is understamped and not admissible in evidence. She further submitted that the said agreement was the result of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. Another objection raised by her was that the Civil Courts at Hoshiarpur had no jurisdiction.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, who tried the suit framed the following issues :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error in reversing the finding of the Trial court on issue No. 5. Section 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate Court or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. It has been held in Koopilan Uneen's daughter Pathumma v. Koopilan Uneen s son Kuntalana Kutty dead by LRs., 1981 AIR(SC) 1683 that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an Appellate or Revisional Court, if the fulfilment of the following three conditions is essential :-