RAMESHWAR Vs. SIND NATIONAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition against the order of the District Judge Balotra dated the 13th of January, 1954 confirming on appeal the order of the Munsif Balotra dated the 27th of December, 1950 by which the plaint of the plaintiff was ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 for the reason that court in which the suit was instituted had no jurisdiction to try it.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that they carried on business at Karachi in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal and that Ramkaran, Bhanwarlal, Rameshwar and Ram Rakh are the members of the joint family concern. It is also stated that after the partition of India, the firm at Karachi was closed down and the plaintiffs came and settled in India as displaced person. THE suit was instituted in the court of the Munsif, Balotra under sec 4 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant bank was not a displaced bank within the definition of the term displaced person as given in sec. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948 as amended by the Amending Act No. 68 of 1950. THE defendant pleaded that the court of the Munsif at Balotra had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiffs were not the displaced person as defined in the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act and also for the reason that the defendant bank was a displaced person. THE learned Munsif, Balotra framed a preliminary issue as to whether the plaintiffs were displaced persons and the defendant bank was not a displaced person and after having tried that issue, ordered the return of the plaint as noted above. THE learned Munsif observed that the plaintiffs had their ancestral business at Balotra even when they may have also carried on business at Karachi, and for this reason, the learned Munsif was not prepared to hold that the plaintiffs were displaced persons. It was also observed that the defendant bank was a displaced person as a notification was issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation No. SRO 866 dated the 26th of May, 1953 stating that the defendant bank was a displaced person. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Balotra did not go into the points which weighed with the lower court but confirmed the order for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to give evidence to show that they resided at Karachi before the disturbances. It was also noted by the learned Judge that the plaintiffs had their business at Balotra from before, and also that the plaintiffs failed to produce a certificate, which it was stated by Rameshwar, they had obtained regarding their status of displaced persons. THE order of the first court was therefore, confirmed in appeal. THE plaintiffs have come to this court in revision and the learned counsel of the petitioners has urged that the lower appellate court was wrong in noting in its judgement that there was no evidence on the point that plaintiffs resided at Karachi before the partition. THE statement of Rameshwar has been referred to on this point. It is also urged that the fact that the plaintiffs had also some business at Balotra would not militate against their holding the status of displaced persons in the event of their showing the existence of the circumstances ,which would bring their case within the definition of sec. 3 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act. It is also stated that the plaintiffs resided at Karachi before the partition and they carried on business in the name of Ramkaran Bhanwarlal which was closed on account of the disturbances in Pakistan and that the plaintiffs migrated to India after the partition.