(1.) This revision is filed against the order dtd. 22/1/2021, wherein and whereby, the court of XV Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - II Additional Family Judge, R.R. District, Kukatpally, dismissed I.A.No.1157/2020 in O.S.No.91 of 2020, filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 10(3) read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. to return the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that as per the plaint averments, the memorandum of understanding, based on which the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount, was executed at Vizianagaram, and that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. He submits that the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone have to be considered to decide the jurisdiction of the court. But the trial court has relied on the letter dtd. 3/4/2018, stated to have been written by the petitioners to the respondent along with partnership deed dtd. 15/4/2013. He submits that these documents do not form part of the plaint and they are neither received, nor marked, and hence they cannot be relied upon to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that the alleged memorandum of understanding dtd. 26/6/2017 was executed at Vizianagaram, and the defendants also reside at Vizianagaram and the witnesses also reside at Vizianagaram. He further submits that the based on the alleged memorandum of understanding dtd. 26/6/2017, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge at Vizianagaram and obtained interim injunction. But the trial court without considering these aspects in proper perspective, passed the impugned order dismissing the interlocutory application and the same may bet set aside.