Mm Rubber Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Vinoo Patterns & Furniture ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 155 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This petition can be disposed of at this stage.

2. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the order was placed at Delhi and the same was booked by the sales officer of the petitioner and the said order was Ex. PW1/1. It has been contended by counsel for the respondents that as the cheque was issued from Bhopal, the cause of action arose in Bhopal and has stoutly defended the order passed by the Civil Judge.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the Civil Judge and contended that part of cause of action accrued in Delhi and if part of cause of action has accrued in Delhi, then the Court at Delhi will have the jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. It is not gain saying that a suit can be filed in the Court in whose jurisdiction the cause of action has accrued. The court has to examine the question of territorial jurisdiction so as to consider as to whether the whole of the cause of action or part of the cause of action has accrued in the territory where the plaint is presented. In this case, there is no dispute that the goods were sent from Delhi. There is also no dispute that the cheques issued by the respondents from Bhopal meant for payment were sent at Delhi which on presentation bounced. Therefore, a part of the cause of action has accrued in Delhi and that aspect of the matter has been lost sight by the Civil Judge.

5. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order dated 31.3.1998 of the Civil Judge and direct the trial court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Let parties to appear before the Civil Judge on 16.2.2000.

6. With these observations, petition stands disposed of.