VIJAI TRADING COMPANY Vs. FIRM JAWAHARMAL SULTANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the District Judge, Balotra, holding that he had jurisdiction to try the present suit which was instituted against them by the plaintiff on the basis of a Hundi.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Barmer. Defendant No. 1 is a firm carrying on business at Bikaner. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm who reside at Bikaner. THE plaintiff firm trades in wool and had dealings with the defendant firm. THE case put forward in the plaint is that a sum of Rs. 33,000/- was due to the plaintiff firm from the defendant firm and in part payment of this amount a Hundi payable at sight for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- drawn by the defendant firm on a Bombay firm, Hira Lal Rajender Prasad, was sent to the plaintiff at Barmer. THE plaintiff endorsed the Hundi in favour of another Bombay firm for collection. THE Hundi was presented to the drawee, but was dishonoured. Notice of dishonour was served on the defendant and the present suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- principal and Rs. 3,100/- interest was instituted in the court of the District Judge, Balotra, on the basis of the Hundi. THE suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the court at Balotra had no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE question of jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue. On behalf of the plaintiff reliance was placed on the following observation made by Wadia J. reported in Jivatlal Vs. Lal Bhai (1): - "the cause of action on a negotiable instrument generally arises wherever any one of the facts, the proof of which is essential under the circumstances of the case, occurred. THE place of the making of the promissory note is an essential part of the cause of action so as to give the court of that place jurisdiction to try the suit on the note. THE promissory note was admittedly passed at Ahmedabad and the court at Ahmedabad would certainly have jurisdiction to try the suit on the note. It may sometimes happen that a promissory note is executed in one place but delivered to the promisee at another place and that moneys due thereunder are payable at a third place. In such a case part of the cause of arises at one of these places, and a suit may be filed at any one of these places at the plaintiff's option. "