THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 2158 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against judgment made in O.S. No. 720 of 1995 dated 14.3.2002 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Plaintiff is the appellant. Respondents are the defendants. Appellant-plaintiff laid suit in O.S. No. 720 of 1995 before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,47,483/- with future interest and costs from the defendants. It is the case of the appellant that it is a Proprietary Firm, manufacturing poultry cage materials and marketing the same. D-1 is the father and D-2 is the son. Both of them are doing poultry business at Ananthapalli village of West Godavari District. On 17.8.1992, D-1 placed purchase order for erection of cages to keep 5,000 birds. Along with the purchase order, D-1 sent demand draft for Rs.20,000/- towards part payment of the cost of the cages. The total cost goes to Rs.1,46,062/-. After completion of the work, second defendant gave a letter on 16.11.1992. Defendants are due an amount of Rs.79,932/- after deducting the balance amount already paid and they failed to pay the said amount. D-2 is looking after the business established under the name and style of Vasundhara Poultry Farm. On 17.11.1993, D-2 executed a promissory note for Rs.80,000/- in favour of plaintiff undertaking to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. As the defendants failed to pay the amount, a legal notice was issued on 31.10.1994. As the demand was not complied with, the present suit is filed. Whereas, the case of 1st defendant is that he is not doing any business much less poultry business. He is neither a partner nor a proprietor of Vasundhara Poultry farm. He placed an order on 17.8.1992 to the plaintiff for supply of cages along with demand draft for Rs.20,000/-. Subsequently, he stopped the plan of starting poultry business and requested plaintiff to return the amount. Plaintiff did not return the said amount to him. According to him, he did not receive any statements, did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and no material is supplied by the plaintiff to him. He thus denied the suit liability and further contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 2nd defendant also pleaded that he is in no way connected with the alleged order dated 17.8.1992. He was given in adoption to K. Subbanna under registered adoption deed. He is living separately since long time. 1st defendant is having poultry farm in the name of SS Poultries and it is a sole Proprietary concern. Further, he denied the allegations either about the work said to have been done by plaintiff or execution of the promissory note in favour of plaintiff. According to him, the claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation and the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for the reason that the defendants are residents of West Godavari District and the so called placing of Order and the execution of promissory note took place within West Godavari District. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff supplied chick cages to D-1 and D-1 is due Rs.79,932/-? 2. Whether there is any privity of contract in between plaintiff and D-2? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest as claimed? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for telephone charges as claimed in the plaint? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, if so, D-1 and D-2 are liable? 6. To what relief? Thereafter, it appears, as per the Order in I.A. No. 1431 of 2001 the following additional issue was framed on 11.12.2001: “Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit? In order to prove the respective cases, plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On the other hand, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the defendants. On a consideration of the oral and the documentary evidence available on record, the Court below held the additional issue as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not, in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff, observing that admittedly both the defendants are residents of Ananthapalli village of West Godavari District. D-1 placed the order at Ananthapalli village. PW-1 admitted that the work was carried out at Ananthapalli village itself and the execution of promissory note under Ex.A-7 was also at Ananthapalli village. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. From a reading of the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is seen that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The whole transaction, if any, emanated, took place and completed at Ananthapalli village of West Godavari District. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Court below that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. In view of the same, the judgment passed by the Court below dated 14.3.2002 returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court needs no interference by this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri L.J. Veera Reddy that since this C.M.A. is filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.3.2002 in O.S. No. 720 of 1995, entire record is transmitted to this Court and the plaint was not returned. If that be so, the Registry is directed to return the entire record relating to this case to the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, and, in turn, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad shall return the plaint, if not already returned, for being presented before the proper Court. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 23-7-2010. MVB.