THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1990 of 2011 Dated: 17.08.2011 Between: K.Venkata Chary, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And V.Rama Subbaiah, R.R.District. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.1990 of 2011 O R D E R: Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.999 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The defendant filed the written statement contending inter alia that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Ranga Reddy District, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction. However, the Court below did not frame an issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. In the circumstances, while the trial was in progress, the defendant filed I.A.No.363 of 2011 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with 151 of C.P.C. to frame an additional issue for determining the jurisdiction pertaining to the suit transaction. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 21.04.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The defendant in his written statement though admitted the loan transaction, it was specifically pleaded in the written statement itself that the loans were advanced to him in the office situated at Santoshnagar and therefore no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Court. It is true that the question whether the loan transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District or Hyderabad has to be decided only after the evidence is adduced by both the parties. However, it is necessary to frame a specific issue in that regard. Therefore, the defendant was justified in seeking to frame an additional issue and there was no justifiable reason to dismiss the same. Admittedly, the matter is still coming up for evidence of the defendants. Hence, by framing the additional issue no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and I.A.No.363 of 2011 is hereby allowed with a direction to the Court below to frame an additional issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. There shall also be a direction to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence, if any on his behalf with regard to the additional issue. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 17.08.2011 KLP