1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2269 of 2008 Chemisol Adhesive Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Kamlesh Shantilal Jain & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.A.J. Almeida for the petitioner. Mr.Atul G. Damle for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 14th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Damle waives notice for the respondent. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 3. This writ petition under Article 227 takes 2 exception to the judgement and order dated 20th December 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Vasai in Civil Suit no.63 of 2005. By the said order, the application made by the petitioner purported to be under section 20(c) of C.P.C for rejection of plaint and to return the plaint to the respondent plaintiff to be presented before appropriate court, has been rejected. The court below while analysing the contentions of the rival parties has found that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court. For that, the court relied on document at Sr.No.6 being communication sent by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff on the plaintiffs Vasai address for termination of contract of waterproofing. 4. By no stretch of imagination, that document can give rise to cause of action between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is significant to note that in the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff, relief for recovery of amount of Rs.8,45,265/- is only against the defendant no.1 - petitioner herein and not against other defendants. In that sense, the court was expected to examine as to any part of cause of action between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in relation to the transaction on the basis of which the amount is claimed by the 3 plaintiff had arisen within the jurisdiction of that court. No other communication or transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 can give rise to cause of action between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 between whom the suit will be contested. Thus understood, the basis on which the court below proceeded to answer the issue against the petitioner cannot be sustained. If that basis is overturned and if the plaint is to be perused the only assertion made in paragraph no.15 of the plaint for asserting that the Vasai Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain and suit is that the plaintiff was residing at Vasai and the plaintiff has its office at Vasai. Those facts alone cannot be the basis to hold that the Vasai Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 especially because in the present case, the relief of recovery of amount is claimed only against defendant no.1. In the circumstances, the order impugned in this petition will have to be set aside. Instead the application preferred by the petitioner purported to be section 20(c) of C.P.C is restored to the file of the trial court, for being reconsidered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 5. At the same time, the petitioner may be free to take out application for transfer of the suit 4 filed by the respondent plaintiff before Vasai Court to be tried and decided along with summary suit filed by the plaintiff which is pending in this court in relation to the self same transaction on the basis of which the respondent plaintiff claims recovery of amount from the petitioner defendant no.1. This is so because the defence of the respondent plaintiff in the Summary Suit pending between the parties is the basis of assertion and relief of recovery of amount stated in the subject suit claimed by the respondent plaintiff. In other words, both the suits will involve overlapping issues atleast to the extent of petitioner and respondent no.1 plaintiff. 6. All questions in respect of proposed application for transfer of suit pending before the Vasai Court are left open to be decided at appropriate stage. 7. This petition is disposed off with the above observations. 8. Parties shall appear before the trial court on 15th September 2008 when the restored application purported to be u/s.20(c) of the C.P.C to proceed on its own merits in accordance with law, keeping in mind observations made in earlier part of this order. 5 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)