PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH TA 115 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.9.2009 Kamlesh Kaur petitioner vs Kamaljit Kaur Respondent Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate Mr. AS Gill, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Kamaljit Kaur has filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner and her daughter Neeru stating that Neeru had taken a loan from her and the petitioner had stood surety for return of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a matter of fact the daughter of the petitioner,namely, Neeru was married to Jaswinder Singh, brother of Paramjit Singh. So far as Kamaljit Kaur is concerned, she is the wife of Paramjit Singh. The suit for recovery has been filed at Jalandhar as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner on 11.5.2007 u/s 406/498-A IPC. A divorce petition has also been filed by the petitioner's daughter. In nutshell the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if seen in context to the provisions of Section 20 CPC, no transaction has taken place at Jalandhar and that the civil court at Jalandhar has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the false suit of recovery filed by Kamaljit Kaur respondent at Jalandhar. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the opinion that the suit for recovery can be contested by the petitioner by engaging a counsel at Jalandhar. The objection regarding jurisdiction can be taken up in the written statement. In case the petitioner is able to satisfy the court that the said court does not have any jurisdiction, it will always be open to the court to even return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court. Without intending to express any opinion regarding the existence of jurisdiction, I am of the view that no ground is made out for transfer of the case from Jalandhar to Mohali or Chandigarh. Dismissed. September 24 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE