RSA No.3059 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3059 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.09.2008 Uttar Pardesh Financial Corporation & anr. ....appellants Versus Sarvesh Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.O.P.Batra, Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondents for recovery of Rs.31,500/- has been decreed along with the pendente lite and future interest @ Rs.6% from the date of suit till realization. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the defendants on 17.09.1997 as earnest money for purchase of woolen machinery which was agreed to be delivered at Ludhiana within 15 days. Since the defendants failed to supply the machinery within the stipulated period, the plaintiff cancelled the purchase order and requested to refund the amount but the defendants failed to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Hence this suit. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants on the ground that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction to try the suit as no cause of action has arisen at Ludhiana. Neither the defendants/appellants are having any office at Ludhiana, nor they work for RSA No.3059 of 2008 2 gains in the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Ludhiana and their work place is basically situated in the State of U.P. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff has paid Rs.25,000/-. However, it was stated that since the plaintiff-respondent has failed to lift the machinery from Dehradun, so the earnest amount was forfeited. After perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the finding of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellants have filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Civil Court at Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction, as plaintiff, while appearing as PW1 has admitted that defendant has its Head Office at Kanpur and there is no Branch at Ludhiana and thus, on the basis of this admission, the counsel for the appellants has argued that the Courts below have erred at law by holding that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find no force in the contention raised by him. Simply because there is no Branch at Ludhiana, it will not oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Ludhiana because admittedly the defendants/appellants have collected the earnest money at Ludhiana. Thus a part of cause of action has arisen at Ludhiana and the Civil Court, Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the suit. No substantial question of law arises. No merits. Dismissed. September 22,2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) neenu JUDGE