KANWAR JEOTINDRA SINGH Vs. NOPANY CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of eight appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Kanwar Jeotindra Singh and his brother Harindra Singh agreed to sell their land measuring 18.2 bighas along with the structure thereupon situate in village Garog, Tehsil and District Solan to defendant No.1 Nopany Charitable Trust for a total consideration of Rs.57,50,000/-. The sale deed in this behalf was executed on 26.9.1998. At the time of the sale as against the total sale consideration of Rs. 57,50,000/- only a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- was paid and the balance amount of Rs.46,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the defendants in instalments. The defendants issued 18 post dated cheques in this behalf. These cheques were signed defendant No.3 as authorized signatory of defendant No.1. Out of these cheques, 3 cheques for Rs.6,25,000/- were encashed but 15 cheques were dishonoured. The total value of these cheques was Rs.39,75,000/-. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendant to pay the amounts due on account of dishonoured cheques but the said amount was not paid. The plaintiff filed 8 separate suits as the cheques had been dishonoured on different occasions. The details of the suits vis-a-vis F.A.Os in the present cases and the amounts involved in the suits are as follows:-

(2.) THE defendants contested the suits. The execution of the sale deed was not denied. It was, however, stated that the plaintiff refused to deliver the possession or get the mutation attested and therefore, was not entitled to the balance amount. The defendants had also raised objections that 8 separate suits had wrongly been filed and the subsequent suits were hit by the provisions of Order 2 rule 2 CPC. Other objections were also taken. It is not necessary to deal with the same in detail. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the cheques amount along with simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 26.4.1999 the date when the last cheque was payable. The court also held that since the suits had been filed only on the basis of dishonour of cheques each separate dishonoured cheque gave separate cause of action to the plaintiff and, therefore, the subsequent suits were not barred under Order 2 rule 2 CPC since the cause of action is separate in all the suits. While dealing with the relief clause, the learned trial Court went on to hold that it had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter since the cheques had been dishonoured at Calcutta and only the Courts at Calcutta had jurisdiction. While taking this view, the learned trial Court has relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Chanana Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Jaitu Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd, AIR 2000 HP 48. Thereafter the learned trial Court has ordered to return all the plaints under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said order passed in the suits, the plaintiff has filed the present appeals.

(3.) SHRI Bhupender Gupta has urged that the defendants had not raised any objections with regard to jurisdiction. He submits that no issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court was framed and as such the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He further submits that the cheques were issued in consequence of the sale deed with regard to property situate at Solan. The sale deed was also executed at Solan and the entire transactions took place at Solan. The amounts were payable at Solan and the cheques were delivered to the plaintiff at Solan. He submits that the trial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. He further submits that the normal rule is that the debtor should seek the creditor and since in the present case the creditor is based at Solan, it was the duty of the debtor to have paid the money at Solan. According to Shri Gupta, the cheques were a actually delivered at Solan, presented at Solan and, therefore, the mere fact that the account of the defendants was at Calcutta and the cheques were dishonoured at Calcutta would not exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts at Solan.