MANNALAL Vs. PANEYCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code against the order of the District Judge, Bikaner dated 27-2-1954 in suit No. 3 of 1952.

(2.) THE allegations of the plaintiffs were that there was a firm Bijaisingh chandkaran at Calcutta. The partners were (1) Mannalal, (2) Padamchand, (3)Motilal, (4) Mirzamal, (5) Champalal, all sons of Seth Takhatmal and (6) Dalchand, another son of Takhatmal who is defendant No. 4 in the case. It was alleged that there was a firm of the name of Pancychand Nahata at Champai, Nawabganj, district Malda (now in Pakistan) of which the partners were Paneychand defendant No. 1, Meghraj, defendant No. 2, Jesraj defendant No. 3 and Dalchand son of takhatraal defendant No. 4. It was alleged that the firm Bijaisingh Chandkaran of Calcutta had dealings with firm Paneychand Nehata of Champai, Nawabganj as a result whereof a sum of Rs. 33, 574/-/6 remained due against the said firm payable to the plaintiffs. The firm of Paneychand Nahata was closed in Samwat 2004 prior to the formation of pakistan. It was alleged that the defendants did not pay up this amount and after adding interest, the amount due to firm Bijaisingh Chandkaran from firm paneychand Nahata on the date of the suit came to Rs 43,531/ -. The allegations regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit are contained in para 6 and are as follows :

(3.) THE suit was contested by Paneychand and Jasraj and proceeded ex parte against Meghraj and Dalchand. Pancychand by his written statement took various pleas one of them being that the court had no jurisdiction. He alleged that he neither actually and voluntarily resided at Momasar nor did he carry on business or personally work for gain at Momasar. He alleged that he had been residing at champai Nawabganj from his boyhood days and had his business there, but that after the partition, he resided at 16, Normal Lohia Lane, Calcutta to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Jasraj, also pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction as he did not actually and voluntarily reside at Momasar nor did he carry on business or personally work for gain there. It was alleged that he used to reside at Champai Nawabganj in East pakistan from very young age and that he was at the time of the suit residing at 109/9a Hazara Road, Calcutta to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The trial court framed seven issues and issue No. 1 was as follows : (1) Are the defendants permanent residents of Momasar (Bikaner) and so this court has jurisdiction to try this suit ?