Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports
respondents for recovery of certain money based on a contract.
As per the admitted plaint averments,
the office of the defendants is located in Pargi,
the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi,
the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was
executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.
According to the petitioner, as the acceptance of the
contract made by the respondents was received by him at
Malkajgiri, the Court at Malkajgiri has territorial jurisdiction.
The lower Court while returning the plaint has observed
that the ingredients of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure
are not satisfied as the place of work or business of the
respondents does not fall within its jurisdiction or that the
property in respect of which the contract has been executed is
also not situated within its jurisdiction.
A further observation
was made that though initially the petitioner has not mentioned
in the plaint as to on which date and where he accepted the
tender, a plea was subsequently added to the effect that he has
accepted the tender from his residence only to create the cause
of action to the Court at Malkajgiri.
Under Section 20 C.P.C. 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
(b) any 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, provided that in such case
either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants
who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally
work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
The settled legal
position is that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract,
the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted
and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of
action arises at the place where such termination order is
received.
Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a
contract and not on termination of the contract. The offer of the
petitioner was accepted at Pargi and the contract was made at
Pargi.
It is also not in dispute that the contract work is executed
within the jurisdiction of Court at Pargi. Consequently, it is only
Court at Pargi which has jurisdiction. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS