MOHANLAL Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNJE , A.J.C. 1. This is an application in revision against the appellate decision of the District Judge, Bhandara, which sot aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, Balaghat, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court (the Court at Bhandara) and directing that Court to admit the plaint. The suit was for recovery of price of tendu leaves supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant at Arjuntola in the Balgghat Distrct. The defendants made the contract of sale at Arjuntola but expressly agreed that the plaintiff shall receive the price of the leaves at the defendant's shop at Tumsar in the Bhandara District. The Court of the Subordinate Judge at Balaghat returned the plaint as, in the Judges' opinion, the sjuit could only lie in the Court at Bhandara. In appeal, the learned District Judge set aside the order and held that both the Courts, i.e., at Balaghat and at Bhandara, had jurisdiction to try the suit and that, as the plaintiff had made his election the Court at Balaghat had no reason to return the plaint. In revision, the only question before me is whether the Court at Balaghat had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The learned pleader for the applicants argues that the only Court having jurisdiction was the Court at Bhandara because the suit was for the performance of that part of the agreement whereby the price was to be paid and that part was to be performed at Tumsar in the Bhandara District. He has also referred me to two cases in support of his argument, viz. Raman Chettiar v. Gopalachari [1908] 31 Mad. 223 and Sailendra Nath v. Ram Sundar [1912] 16 C.L.J. 279.

(2.) BOTH the authorities cited are in my opinion not to the point as in both the cases the contract was entered into and money thereunder was payable at one and the same place, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit was brought. In the case before me the contract was entered into and also partly performed, in the Balaghat District and the remaining portion thereof was to he performed in the Bhandara District and thus the cause of action arose partly within the jurisdiction of both the Courts. Section 20(c), Civil P.C. formerly ran as follows; ...every suit shall be institute in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose.

(3.) IT is thus clear that under the old Code, as amended in 1888, this suit could have been brought in the Court at Balaghat because it was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court that the "contract was made." In the present Code this explanation has been omitted and instead the words "wholly or in part" have been added in Clause (c). It would thus appear that the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the contract was made, or a part of the cause of action arose, has jurisdiction to try the suit If any authority on this point were needed, I might refer to the recent cases of Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam Mahbur Khan Cal. where their Lordships observe as follows: It follows that in their Lordships' judgment no part of the obligations either of the principal debtor or of the surety wa3 to be discharged at Secunderabad. And no obligation was assumed there. No part of the plaintiff's cause of action accordingly arose within the local limits of the Court of the trial Judge.