DWARKA DAS Vs. HANUMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by Dwarkadas, Kishangopal and Dhanraj defendants against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bika-ner setting aside an order of the Civil Judge Bikaner for returning the plaint fot presentation to proper court on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try it as the defendants did not actually and voluntarily reside within his jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision application are these. Hanuman Das plaintiff instituted a suit against 9 defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs.5225.0076 in the court of the Civil Judge Bikaner on the allegation that they were partners in a firm Baneychand Suganchand with which he had deposited a sum of Rs.9500.00 at Calcutta on 28/3/50, that a sum of Rs.6054.004 had been paid to him on different dates in repayment of the amount and that the balance was not paid in spite of demand.

(3.) The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance of the principal together with interest. It was asserted that the plaintiff as well as the defen-dants resided in Bikaner. The suit was contested by five of the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. All of them pleaded inter alia that they were not residing within the jurisdiction of the court as required by Sec. 20 C. P. C. and it had consequently no jurisdiction to try the suit.