IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI C.R.P.No.142/2006 # LML Ltd. ........ Petitioner ! through: Mr. R.Santhanam, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate VERSUS $ M/s. Grover Leasing Ltd. ........ Respondent ^ through: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate % DATE OF DECISION: 9.01.2008 CORAM: * Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner takes exception to an order dated 27.3.2006 holding that a perusal of the plaint shows that vis-a- vis the petitioner Courts at Delhi have jurisdiction. 2. First respondent had filed a suit for recovery alleging that a lease agreement was entered into between it and defendant No.1 'LML Fibres Ltd'. It was alleged that defendant No.1 changed name and was known as 'M/s.Esslon Page 1 of 3 Synthetics Ltd'. M/s.Esslon Synthetics Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No.2. Petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.3 on the averment that it had stood as a guarantor to repay the outstanding amount under the lease agreement should the lessee be in default. 3. Before proceeding ahead with further narration I may note that the plaint has been drafted most unartistically. The author of the plaint is not conscious of the fact that when a company changes the name a single entity remains. Thus, defendants No.1 and 2 are the one and the same entity. The so called defendant No.1 does not exist for the reason its name has got changed to the name of defendant No.2. 4. Be that as it may, further narration of the facts require me to note that in para 13 of the plaint, pertaining to accrual of cause of action and conclusions to be drawn thereto with respect to territorial jurisdiction, following has been pleaded:- “13. That the cause of action arose from time to time from the date of default of each quarter as and when the installment became due. The defendants paid by cheque last payment on 6th July, 1985 for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The payment of installments, as agreed, had been payable at New Delhi at the registered office of the plaintiff and the payments made in respect of the quarters earlier in dates had been actually made at New Delhi. The agreement of lease deed and of guarantee made on 25th January 1991 was executed and made at New Delhi. In view Page 2 of 3 thereof the whole cause of action arose in Delhi.” 5. Since M/s.Esslon Synthetics Ltd. proceeded to liquidation, plaintiff gave up relief against defendants No.1 and 2. The suit continued only against the petitioner, impleaded as defendant No.3. 6. According to the petitioner, having given up defendants No.1 and 2, averments in the plaint relatable to said defendants it to be eschewed while determining territorial jurisdiction vis-a-vis the cause pleaded against it. 7. Learned Trial Judge has opined against the petitioner. 8. Suffice would it be to note that in para 13 of the plaint it has been specifically averred that the guarantee in question furnished by the petitioner was executed at Delhi. This averment is sufficient to clothe jurisdiction at Delhi. 9. I may clarify. If petitioner denies having executed guarantee at Delhi, said dispute would be a question of fact to be answered at the time of final adjudication and in light of the evidence led; on issue being framed. 10. I find no merits in the petition. 11. Dismissed. January 09, 2008 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. dk-bainsla Page 3 of 3