KOKA AUDINARAYANA RAO NAIDU Vs. BHAVARAJU LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit for accounts filed by a principal against his agent. Both the Courts have held that no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the Chicacole Munsif's Court's jurisdiction and the plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court, as the conditions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code are not satisfied in the present case.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that either as a matter of law or even as an inference of fact as to the intended place of performance of the contract, I should hold that the cause of action arose in whole or in part within the Chicacole Court's jurisdiction. I am unable to accede to this contention. As pointed out by the learned District Judge, the reasoning in Tika Ram V/s. Daulat Raw (1924) I.L.R. 46 All. 465, where a very similar question arose, is clearly in favour of the view taken by the Courts below.

(3.) Mr. Jagannadha Das, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has mainly relied on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Soniram Jeetmull V/s. R.D. Tata & Co. Ltd. (1927) 53 M.L.J. 25 : L.R. 54 I.A. 265 : I.L.R. 5 Rang. 451 (P.C.), I am not able to accept his interpretation of that judgment. It is difficult to read that decision as laying down that as a rule of law, the principle that the debtor is bound to seek out his creditor and pay his debt is applicable in this country even for the purpose of determining the local jurisdiction of particular Courts. Their Lordships have taken care to indicate at the end of the judgment that their decision was based upon the inference drawn from the terms of the contract itself or from the necessities of the case. In an earlier part of the judgment, they referred to the fact that the business transactions out of which the outstanding debts arose in that case took place in Rangoon where a branch of the plaintiff's firm was situate and from this circumstance and from the nature of the contract, they seem to have drawn the inference that the parties must have intended by necessary implication that the monies were to be paid in Rangoon.