ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. SENSMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which has been referred to this Court is "whether an assignment would give cause of action to the court where the assignment was made, though otherwise that court wou!d have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to the debt which was assigned. "

(2.) IT would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to the question before us. A money suit was filed by the plaintiffs Sensmal Sugarlal, who are non-petitioners No. l and 2 in this revision application in the court of Munsif Merta. Their case was that the defendant Abdul Gafoor who is petitioner in this Court owed a debt to defendants No. 2 and 3 who are non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 in this Court and that he executed a document in their favour on Falgun Sudi 5, Svt. 2005, whereby he promised to pay off the debt in two instalments. According to the plaintiffs, this debt was assigned by defendants No. 2 and 3 to them in consideration of a cash amount which they had obtained from them. The defendant-petitioner traversed the claim on several grounds. One of his objections was that he and defendants No. 2 and 3 were all residents of Khejarla, that transactions between them had taken place at Khejarla and therefore the Munsif Merta had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The plaintiffs assertion was that the debt was assigned to them by defendants No. 2 and 3 at Individ and therefore the Munsif Merta had certainly jurisdiction to entertain the suit. IT is not in dispute that Khejarla is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif Merta while Individ is within the jurisdiction of that court. The trial court framed issue No. 5 regarding its jurisdiction and decided it in favour of the plaintiffs The defendant thereupon presented a revision to this Court. The matter came for hearing before a Singal Bench. Since it was thought that the point involved in revision was one of importance and there was difference of opinion amongst some High Courts it was referred to a Division Bench. The same point was once considered in the case of Misrimal vs. Moda (1) by a Division Bench of this Court, but it was left undecided at that time.

(3.) THUS there is a strong of authorities of various High Courts in India as mentioned above in favour of the view that an assignment of a debt is itself a part of the cause of action and therefore a suit can be brought in the court within whose jurisdiction the assignment has been made. We are also of opinion that the expression 'cause of action' means all that bundle of facts which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. In the case of assignment of a debt the plaintiff will be bound to prove that the debt was assigned in his favour by the assignor and therefore the assignment is a part of the cause of action. It such assignment is made within the jurisdiction of a court that court would be competent to entertain and decide the suit