Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Pramod Singh

Patna HC18 Sept 2013CWJC/12695/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of an application questioning territorial jurisdiction under Sections 16 and 20 CPC. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the lower court did not commit illegality in finding that cause of action arose in both jurisdictions. It distinguished cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application questioning maintainability of the suit under Sections 16 and 20 CPC dismissed.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs Pramod Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12695 of 2013 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Bechan Singh Resident Of Village- Katwa Majhi, P.S. Iliya (Sahebganj), District- Chandauli (U.P.) .... Defendant in the learned Court below.... Petitioner Versus Pramod Singh Son of Sri Mahesh Singh Resident Of Village- Bagchhara, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). .... Plaintiff in the learned Court below.... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Mr. Shashi Kumar For the Respondent : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 18-09-2013 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24.05.2013 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. 2. 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. 3. This is not in dispute that the Respondent got the said Money Suit No. 7/2011 instituted seeking a relief for payment of a

¶2

Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2013 (2) dt.18-09-2013 P2/4

¶3

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.

¶4

On 12.04.2012, 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.).

¶5

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.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1963 Pat 398 (Gouri Shankar Bajoria V. Ram Banka) to contend that the cause of action arose at place where the cheque was presented for

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2013 (2) dt.18-09-2013 P3/4

¶8

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 V. Ram Banka (supra) are different and ratio laid down in that case will have no application, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶9

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1961 Pat 198 (N/s Johri Mull Prahlad Rai V. Hira Lal, in which this Court held that part cause of action had arisen within the locals limits of Chatra Munsifi 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.

¶10

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

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2013 (2) dt.18-09-2013 P4/4

¶12

basis of pleadings.
9. This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Saif/-

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Pramod Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Pramod Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwari Prasad Vs Ganesh Prasad

Shambhu Singh Vs Bharat Singh and Anr.

Jyoti Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Malti Mehta Vs Hare Krishna Mahtha and Ors.

Subodh Sagar @ Subodh Sagar Sharma Vs Saroj Kumar

Padma Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs Satya Prakash Singh and Ors.