Rajesh Kumar Singh vs Pramod Singh

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24.5.2013 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Bhabhua, in Money Suit No. 7/2011 whereby the Court below has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning the maintainability of the Money Suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. From the impugned order, it appears that the Court below rejected the said application on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, cause of action for bringing the suit had arisen at Bagchhara under Police Station-Chand in the District of Kaimur in Bihar as well as at Chandauli in Uttar Pradesh.

This is not in dispute that the Respondent got the said Money Suit No. 7/2011 instituted seeking a relief for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,63,750/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum against sale of paddy crop. It has been stated in the present application that the Respondent's case in the plaint was that the petitioner/defendant, before the Court below, came to the place of Respondent (Bagchhara) under Bhabhua in Bihar and he purchased paddy crop worth Rs. 8,01,250/-, against which a sum of Rs. 2,37,500/- was paid as part payment and rest amount was promised to be paid in future.

On 12.4.2012, the petitioner issued a cheque of Union Bank of India, Branch Chakia under District-Chandauli (U.P.) worth Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the Respondent, but the same was not honoured on being deposited in the Kashi Gomati Sanyukta Gramin Bank, Illiya, Branch-Chandauli (U.P.).

In such circumstance, the suit for realization of the rest consideration amount was filed. Apparently, on the basis of the assertions made in the plaint, as aforesaid, it cannot be said that no cause of action arose at Bagchhara and that cause of action arose exclusively in Chandauli, where the cheque was issued and presented for encashment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in Gouri Shankar Bajoria Vs. Ram Banka, to contend that the cause of action arose at place where the cheque was presented for encashment. The Court in that case was considering an issue where the cheque was issued at Bombay and was presented in a Bank at Gridih. In that circumstances, this Court held that both the courts having jurisdiction over both the places had the territorial jurisdiction as part cause of action had arisen at both the places. The facts of the case of Gouri Shankar Bajoria vs. Ram Banka (supra) are different and ratio laid down in that case will have no application, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court reported in Johri Mull Prahlad Rai Vs. Hira Lal Seth, , in which this Court held that part cause of action had arisen within the locals limits of Chatra Munsif within the jurisdiction of Hazaribagh, within the meaning of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the amount due to the plaintiff was to be paid by the defendant at Chatra, which was the normal place of business of the plaintiff of that case. In the present case, the specific plea of the plaintiff/Respondent is that most of the transaction took place at Bagchhara and cheque was issued at Chandauli and presented in a bank at Chandauli.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby the Court has held that cause of action has also arisen within territorial jurisdiction of the Court, on the basis of pleadings. This application is accordingly dismissed.