(1.) Thisrevision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23-11 - 993, by which the learned trial Court has decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and held that the Civil Court at Jodhpur has territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the plaintiff/nonpetitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,200/- against the defendant/petitioners alleging that on 2-6-1982, the defendantpetitioners had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/ from the plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 1 at Ootacamund {Tamil Nadu) to purchase a plot and in this connection, a promissory note was executed by the defendantpetitioners in favour of plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 1 at Ootacamund. Thereafter, for the same loan, an another promissory note was executd by the defendant-petitioners on 1-6-1983. Defendant-petitioners did not pay the amount of loan, therefore, they executed a third promissory note on 1-6-1988 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- inclusive of the amount of interest at Ootacamund in favour of plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 1, who gave right to recover the interest on the said amount of promissory note to plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 2 and in this respect, necessary endorsement had been made on the reverse side of the promissory note at Jodhpur. Defendantpetitioners filed the written statement admitting the execution of first two promissory notes but denied the execution of third promissory note for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and submitting that whatever amount was due, had already been repaid. An objection in respect of the territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Court at Jodhpur was raised on the ground that the transaction took place at Ooctacamund and the Court of Jodhpur had no jurisdiction. In view of the pleadings, issues were framed and issue No. 3-A was framed as to whether the Civil Court at Jodhpur had territorial jurisdiction over the matter and the said issue has been decided as a preliminary issue against the defendant/petitioners on the ground that the endorsement made on the reverse side of the promissory note amounted to assignment and as it was made at Jodhpur, the Civil Court at Jodhpur had the Jurisdiction to try thesuit. Henca this revision.
(3.) Mr. R. K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the entry on the back of the promissory note is fictitious and has been made with an oblique motive; it was not so endorsed with thej consent of the defendant-petitioners nor with their knowledge, nor any notice had ever been issued to them informing about the said endorsement. Moreso, what was authorised to plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 2 was to recover the amount of interest only and not the principal amount or the outstanding dues and such an action would not form a cause of action even partly and, therefore, the Civil Court at Jodhpur had no territorial jurisdiction. The finding on the said issue is liable to be reversed by this Court.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN