Civil Revision No.4898 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4898 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:30.08.2011 Sarjit Singh .....Petitioner versus Navneet Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent. **** This revision is directed against the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the District Judge, Patiala in Civil Appeal No.284 of 2007 whereby direction has been issued to return the plaint to the plaintiff- petitioner herein, to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of present revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery against the defendant-respondent herein in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division Patiala. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.09.2007 decreed the suit and appeal came to be preferred by the defendant in the Court of District Judge, Patiala. The Appellate Court vide the impugned order set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and returned the plaint to the plaintiff, to present it before the Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the cause of action having accrued at Sangrur, the Civil Court at Patiala has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted case Civil Revision No.4898 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of the parties that initially the loan transaction between the parties was held at Sangrur. The defendant did not pay the loan amount and interest, thereupon. On demand of the plaintiff, a cheque dated 2.2.2002 was issued by the defendant payable at Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Jhill, Patiala. This cheque was also dishonoured by the bankers of the defendant. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed the present suit at Patiala pleading that the cheque was issued by the defendant at the residence of the plaintiff at Patiala and the same was also payable at Patiala, hence the Court at Patiala had the jurisdiction. The defendant appeared before the trial Court and raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Patiala. From the written statement of the defendant, it appears that the only plea raised by the defendant is that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit. Even, in reply to para No. 18 which deals with the cause of action, the defendant denied having issued the cheque at Patiala at the residence of the plaintiff and again disputed the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The trial Court framed issue No.4 relating to the jurisdiction of the Court which reads as under:- "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit?OPD" While deciding this issue it has been held by the trial Court that the defendant is permanent resident of Patiala. The cheque in dispute was payable at Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Jhill, District Patiala and notice of the demand was also issued to the defendant at Patiala, therefore, part of cause of action to file the suit accrued at Patiala. It was accordingly held that the Civil Court at Patiala has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. Civil Revision No.4898 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The Appellate Court however, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court deciding the question of jurisdiction, while holding that the initial transaction having taken place at Sangrur, no cause of action for filing the suit arose at Patiala and thus, only the Court at Sangrur had the territorial jurisdiction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the plaint, as also the impugned judgment, it appears that the defendant is resident of Patiala. It is admitted position of the defendant- respondent that summons were received by him at Patiala. The defendant never disputed his permanent residence at Patiala. It is also admitted fact on record that the cheque issued by the defendant was payable at Patiala and the banker of the defendant i.e. Punjab and Sindh Bank was having its branch at Patiala whereby the cheque was to be encashed and finally dishonoured. Under these circumstances, the jurisdiction is to be determined in accordance with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.-Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works Civil Revision No.4898 of 2010 (O&M) -4- for gain, provided that in such cases either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." Section 20 gives jurisdiction to a Court to take cognizance of a civil suit where the defendant resides or the cause of action wholly or partly accrues. Residence of defendant at Patiala is not in dispute and even the cause of action partly accrued at Patiala, whereby cheque was encashable and has been dishonoured. Hence, the Civil Court at Patiala had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and try the same. The findings of the Appellate Court are erroneous both on facts and law and are liable to be set aside. This revision is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the District Judge, Patiala is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Patiala to decide the appeal on merits. 30.08.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE Whether to be reported? Yes