Birendra Steel Industries vs Presto Steel Company

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This judgment of mine shall dispose of C. R. No. 2488 of 1991, C. R. No. 2519 of 1991 and C. R. No. 2520 of 1991.

Three suits were filed against the petitioners for the recovery of various amounts, the details of which have been given separately in the said suits, before the Sub Judge 1st Class, Amloh. It was averred in the said plaints that sale and purchase took place at Mandi Gobindgarh, where the/defendants gave cheques to the plaintiffs and as such, the Court at Amloh has jurisdiction to try the suits.

The suits were contested by the defendants (petitioners herein). Apart from denying the claims made in the plaints, a specific objection was taken that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits. It was also claimed that the defendant-firm is a Sick Industrial concern, and in the month of May, 1988, the Punjab Financial Corporation took action against the defendant-firm u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, Act No. 63 of 1951. Therefore, the suit against the defendant-firm is incompetent and not maintainable, and that the Punjab Financial Corporation is liable to be substituted as defendant. The trial Court framed six issues on 8-8-1989 and additional issues No. 6-A, 5-B & 6-C on 9-8-1990. Issues No, 6-A, 6-B and 6-C are reproduced as under:-

"6-A. Whether the Court at Amloh has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present suit? OPP

6-B. Whether the suit is violative of the mandatory provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and its effect? OPD.

6-C. Whether the defendant-firm is under liability to Punjab State Financial Corporation, Chandigarh, and the defendant being a sick concern to Corporation in the month of May, 1988, took action u/s 29(1) of Act No. 29 (5) of above Act and thus suit against the defendant firm is incompetent and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as Priori?"

Thereafter, another additional issue namely issue No. 6-D was framed by the trial Court on 28-8-1990 which is reproduced as under:-

"6-D. Whether the suit is within time ? Onus on the parties. Relief.

The aforesaid issues were treated as preliminary issues No. 6-A, the trial Court found that the payment was made by the defendants at Mandi Gobindgarh and goods were purchased at Mandi Gobindgarh; therefore, the cause of action took place at .Mandi Gobindgarh. Hence, the Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Issues No. 6-B and 6-D were not pressed by the petitioners and on other preliminary issues, the trial Court found that the petitioners have failed to prove that how the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned order.

The plaintiffs have specifically averred in the plaint that the defendants-petitioners paid the amount at Mandi Gobindgurh, and sale and purchase of the material took place at Mandi Gobindgarh. This averment though ''has been denied by the petitioners but there is nothing on record to show that the amount was not paid at Mandi Gobindgarh or sale and purchase of material never took place at Mandi Gobindgarh. Admittedly, there is no written contract from which it can be inferred that the money, was not payable at Mandi Gobindgarh. No doubt, in the plaint, the place of payment is not specifically indicated, but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the Court at Amloh had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Where the place of payment is not indicated in the plaint, it is to be ascertained with reference to the intention of the, parties and circumstances of the case. The suits are for the recovery of amounts on adjustment of accounts, and the plaintiffs have specifically averred that the payments were made through cheques at Mandi Gobindgarh. It can, therefore, be easily inferred that the money was payable at Mandi Gobindgarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any provision of law under which the Punjab Financial Corporation can be substituted in place of petitioner as defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the amount involved in the suit as payable by the defendants; therefore, I fail to understand as to how the Punjab Financial Corporation may have taken action u/s 29 of the Act against the petitioners but the plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against the Punjab Financial Corporation; therefore, I find that the Punjab Financial Corporation is not a necessary party to the suit nor the Corporation can be substituted in place of the petitioners.

Resultantly, the revision petitions are dismissed with costs, Costs assessed as Rs. 500/- in each revision petition. From the record of the case, I find that the suits were filed as far back as in the year 1988, but the same are still at a initial stage; therefore, the trial Court is directed to decide the said suits expeditiously.