RAJA VIRBHADRA SINGH Vs. M/S. ROSHANLAL KUTHIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and the question relates to the amendment of the preliminary issue upon jurisdiction framed by my learned brother Thakur, J., in a manner so that the burden of proof is levied upon the plaintiff and not upon the defendants. The application arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE plaintiff Raja Virbhadra Singh has filed this suit for recovery of rupees one lac and odd from Messrs. Roshan Lal Kuthiala forest contractors Pathankot and others, and the facts culminating in a cause of action as alleged in the plaint are that an amount of Rupees 50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 24-6-1962 at Simla, that with the consent obtained from the plaintiff at Simla another amount of Rupees 50,000/- was transferred from Yamunanagar to Pathankot, that the statement of account was rendered to the plaintiff at Simla, and that communication admitting the liability was sent and verbal demands were also made at Simla. It is further alleged that, the parties also "mainly reside at Simla". On these factual allegations it is submitted that the cause of action arises at Simla and the High Court has jurisdiction to pass the decree.

(3.) IT is manifest the plaintiff has pleaded his case for conferment of jurisdiction under Section 20 and it is for him to establish that either the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business at Simla, or that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises at Simla. The plaintiff has made certain definite allegations to prove all this. The defendants have denied all these allegations. It is then for the plaintiff to prove such allegations so that the jurisdiction is conferred upon this High Court to try the suit.