1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10/2011 (Shri Bhagwat Narayan Choudhary and another vrs. Munshiram Sahebdittmal Chhabra and ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Counsel for applicants Mr. J.B.Gandhi, counsel for respondents. CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE J. DATED: 13 th JUNE, 2011. This revision application challenges the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, rejecting the application filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for framing preliminary issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction and to decide it. The trial Court has held that the question whether it has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit can be gone into after the parties are permitted to lead evidence and hence the application has been rejected. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has invited my attention to Section 20(a) of C.P.C., which reads as under; 2 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 ….. Relying upon averments made in the written statement in paras C and 21, he has urged that the head office of the Company is not at Khamgaon, but it has been shifted to Bhusawal on 25.6.2007 i.e. before the suit was filed on 26.6.2009. He, therefore, submits that the Court at Khamgaon lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. After going through the averments made in the plaint, it seems that there is specific averment in para 21 of the plaint that the defendant no. 2 Company is constituted under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and is having its head office at Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, District-Buldhana. The averments made in the plaint thus shows that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Khamgaon. However, this fact is disputed, as pointed out in earlier para, by the applicant in the written statement. Hence, the issue arise for determination by the trial Court as to whether the Court at Khamgaon has territorial jurisdiction 3 to entertain, try and decide the suit. Perusal of the provisions of Section 20 read with the averments made in the plaint, which are denied in written statement, shows that the fact that the head office of the defendant Company was located at Khamgaon at commencement of the suit is required to be established by leading evidence. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of the trial Court. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit