IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 668 OF 2009() -------------------------------- OS.186/2007 OF PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------- M.K.PUSHPA, D/O.DR.KUNHIKKANNAN NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.334 FIRST CROSS,VRINDAVAN EXTENSION, MYSORE-20. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M.P.JANARDHANAN ,AGED 64 YEARS TRADER, RESIDING AT GOKUL NIVAS, POST ALAVIL, KANNUR-8. ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R-1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING C HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.668 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of December, 2010 O R D E R Parties hereto are cousins who are at loggerheads and fighting the litigation from 2007 onwards. Respondent-plaintiff claimed that at a time when petitioner was in dire need of money to discharge her liability to the State Bank of India, Mysore Branch she came to his residence at Kannur (within the local limits of Sub Court, Thalassery) during first week of January, 2007 and solicited financial assistance to discharge the liability. Respondent accepted the request and offered to pay Rupees four lakhs for the said purpose and as per the understanding between parties he deposited the amount in Fixed Deposit in his name with State Bank of India, Mysore Branch. As part of the understanding the said amount was to be transferred to the account of petitioner to discharge the liability and respondent did so. When petitioner refused to repay amount respondent filed O.S. No.186 of 2007 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Thalassery seeking recovery of the amount with interest and costs. Respondent alleged that cause of action for the suit arose at Kannur when he agreed to give financial assistance to the petitioner and thereafter when he C.R.P. No.668 of 2009 -: 2 :- deposited the amount with the State Bank of India, Mysore Branch which was appropriated by petitioner. Petitioner raised various contentions including that she had no such transaction with the respondent. She disputed territorial jurisdiction of learned Sub Judge, Thalassery to entertain the suit. Learned Sub Judge raised issue No.1 regarding territorial jurisdiction and after hearing both sides by order dated November 4, 2008 rejected objection of petitioner and found that the said court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that apart from the bald averments in the plaint there is no specific plea as to the date of transaction, not to say about the exact place of transaction. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta and Others (1993 KHC 1233). Learned counsel for respondent contends that so far as the issue regarding jurisdiction is concerned it must depend on the averments in the plaint and not the contentions in the written statement. It is also contended that there are sufficient averments in the plaint to attract territorial jurisdiction for the court below. According to the learned counsel decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner has no application to the facts of this case. C.R.P. No.668 of 2009 -: 3 :- 2. Question whether there was any such transaction as claimed by the respondent in the plaint is a matter which the trial court has to decide after trial. Going by the averments in the plaint petitioner made the request for loan at Kannur (where respondent resides) during the first week of January, 2007. It is also his case that he agreed to render financial assistance to the petitioner and as part of the agreement deposited the amount with State Bank of India, Mysore Branch. Contention of petitioner is that since petitioner is residing at Mysore the suit ought to have been filed in the court at Mysore in view of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Decision relied on by learned counsel in my view has no application since that was a case where the suit was for dissolution of a firm and it was held that the mere allegation that the firm had a branch office at Chandigarh will not confer jurisdiction unless it is shown that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. That is not the situation in the present case. Here, it is a suit for recovery of money. True, suits other than those mentioned in Sections 17 to 19 of the Code could be instituted within the local limits of the court within which defendant resides or carries on business. Merely for the reason that petitioner is a resident of Mysore it is hard to contend that the suit ought to have been filed in the court C.R.P. No.668 of 2009 -: 4 :- at that place. Cause of action for the suit is the agreement to advance loan which according to the respondent and as pleaded in the plaint is at Kannur. There is another reason which persuades me to hold that court below has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In cases where place of the payment of the amount is not indicated under the contract between the parties, the principle that 'debtor shall seek the creditor' should apply in the matter of jurisdiction for the court. It has been so held by this Court in Ramasubramanian v. Ranganathan (1978 KLT 906) and Jose Paul v. Jose (AIR 2002 Kerala 397). There is no case for petitioner that payment was to be made elsewhere and there is also no contract between parties in that line. If that be so on the plaint averments petitioner was bound to pay the amount (allegedly due to the respondent as stated in the plaint) at the place of residence of respondent which is at Kannur and which is within the local limits of Sub Court, Thalassery. If that be so, I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv