THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2664 OF 2009 Date: 07-08-2009 Between Chakka Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy …..Petitioner Penugonda Venugopal …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2664 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner – defendant by means of filing this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the correctness of the docket order dated 13-04-2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tuni in I.A No. 92 of 2009 in O.S No. 356 of 2001, whereby he dismissed the I.A filed to decide the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit as a preliminary issue, holding that the Courts at Tuni will have jurisdiction to try the suit. As per the plaint averments, the suit was instituted by the respondent – plaintiff, holder in due course pleading that the petitioner – defendant executed the promissory note at Tuni and the same was transferred by way of endorsement in his favour at Tuni and, therefore, the Court at Tuni will have jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner – defendant filed the said I.A to decide the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit as a preliminary issue. The lower Court, relying on the judgment of this Court in S.S.V. Prasad vs. Y. Suresh Kumar[1] dismissed the I.A holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This Court in S.S.V. Prasad’s case (1 supra) held that holder in due course can proceed to recover the amount covered by promissory note only in a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant therein resides or carries on business or in a Court within whose jurisdiction such negotiable instrument can be presented under Sections 68 to 70 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but not within the jurisdiction of the Court where the endorsement is made. This Court further held that the holder in due course of a promissory note cannot subject the maker of it, to any proceedings which the holder himself could not have instituted. The facts of the above case are different from the facts of the present case. In the above case, the promissory note was executed at Ongle and it was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff at Kavali and the suit was instituted in the Court at Kavali. But, in the present case, the holder himself can institute the suit at Tuni where the promissory note is executed and the holder in due course steps into the shoes of the holder. He can institute the suit in the same Court where the cause of action arises under Section 20 (c) of the CPC. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not warrant any interference in this revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 07-08-2009 ks [1] 2004 (5) ALT 814