FAO No.201 of 2007. Page 1 of 2 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.201/2007 Date of Decision: February 08, 2010 M/S SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Khosla, Advocate Versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Batra, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari and Mr. R.C.Bhandana, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the `Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against an order of a trial Judge dated February 26, 2007. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Judge has returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is revealed from the impugned order that the plaintiff who is appellant before me had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,55,083/- against the respondents, namely, Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi; Central Board of Excise and Customs through its Chairman at New Delhi and the Commissioner of FAO No.201 of 2007. Page 2 of 2 Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Maharashtra. It was alleged in the plaint that respondent No.3 did not allow release/clearance the bill of entry dated February 26, 2001 of the goods/drugs of the appellant. The goods were released by the said respondent after a long lapse of time and only upon the appellant furnishing an indemnity bond dated July 17, 2001. Hence, the suit as aforesaid was filed on account of alleged illegal detention of goods by respondent No.3. The learned Additional District Judge has returned the plaint to the appellant, on the ground that the illegal act of detention of goods has been, allegedly, committed by respondent No.3 who is situate in Maharashtra and, therefore, cause of action, if at all, has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Maharashtra. It is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellant that some circulars were issued by respondents No.1 & 2 and because of those circulars, Courts at Delhi too have the jurisdiction to deal with the suit. I do not agree. The basis for filing the suit is the alleged illegal detention of goods by respondent No.3 and not circulars issued by respondents No.1 & 2. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. REKHA SHARMA, J. FEBRUARY 08, 2010 PC/ka