AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Dayal, J.—This First Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.1983 passed by the learned IV Addl. District Judge Budaun in Suit No. 206 of 1986 directing return of the plaint to the plaintiffsappellants for presentation before the proper court, holding that the court at Budaun did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit.
Suit No. 206 of 1986 was brought by the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 5,90,000 with interest on the allegations that the appellants were in business of hirepurchase, besides lending money and that respondent No. 2 came to Ujhani and asked them for a loan of Rs. 5,50,000 and the letter agreed to advance the loan to respondents 1 and 2 on the assurance of respondent No. 2 that the amount would be repaid with interest at the rate of 2% per month. The appellants pleaded that the court at Budaun had the jurisdiction since the loan had been advanced at Ujhani in district Budaun.
Defendants 1 and 2 denied that the court at Budaun had the jurisdiction. It was pleaded in para 58 of the written statement that no transaction took place at Ujhani/Budaun and, therefore, the court at Budaun did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable since the plaintiffCompany was not having money lending licence to carry on the business of moneylending.
The learned trial court framed issue No. 5 as under :
"5. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged in para 58 of W.S. ?"
The appellants and respondents 1 and 2 led evidence on this issue and after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties the trial court held that the court at Budaun does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit since admittedly the plaintiffs were carrying on business of money lending and, therefore, under Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of MoneyLending Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the suit could be instituted only in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the debtor resides or carries on business or works for gain and not in any other court.
Notices were served on the respondents but none appeared to contest the appeal. We have heard Sri Vikram Nath, Briefholder of Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that issue No. 2 had also been framed by the learned trial court on the question whether the suit was barred under Section 19 of the Act, but without deciding that issue the learned trial court had held that the appellants were moneylenders. According to the learned Counsel, both the issues should have been decided simultaneously and in any case, the issue about jurisdiction should not have been decided relying upon Section 19 of the Act without giving a finding on issue No. 2. It is also submitted that since respondents 1 and 2 had pleaded that cause of action had not arisen in Budaun, only that allegation should have been considered.
However, we do not see any merit in this submission. AnnexureA1 filed by the appellants is a copy of Civil Revision No. 642 of 1988 which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the order dated 28.4.1988 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge dismissing their application for deciding issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue. That revision was dismissed on 23,11.1988. A copy of that order is Annexures A2.
It is thus clear that respondent 1 and 2, and not the appellants, were pressing for decision on issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue. Once finding about jurisdiction has been rendered against the appellants, it is not open to them to contend that issue No. 2 should have also been decided as a preliminary issue. The learned trial court has in the impugned order mentioned that admittedly the appellants were moneylenders and they had specifically mentioned in para 3 of the plaint that they were doing moneylending business and that they had advanced the amount as loan. In view of the admissions contained in the plaint, it was necessary for the learned trial court, while considering the issue as to jurisdiction, to keep in view the provisions of Section 19 of the Act which excludes the jurisdiction of the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of cause of action arises. The question as to the applicability of Section 19 of the Act was relevant to the question of jurisdiction and merely because that question was also the subjectmatter of issue No. 2, it did not mean that relevant law should not have been considered by the trial court while deciding the issue about jurisdiction.
We see no error in the order of the learned trial court and we, accordingly, affirm the finding of the learned trial court and dismiss the appeal. No orders as to costs.