9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge at Bharatpur. 2. Applicability of the common law rule "the debtor must find the creditor." 3. Existence of an agreement determining the place of payment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge at Bharatpur: The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,640/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur. The defendants contested the jurisdiction, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose in Bharatpur. The trial judge held that no part of the cause of action arose in Sibi, Pakistan, and directed the return of the plaint. The plaintiffs appealed, but the District Judge affirmed the trial judge's findings. The plaintiffs then filed this revision. 2. Applicability of the Common Law Rule "the debtor must find the creditor": The plaintiffs argued that the relationship between the parties was that of a debtor and creditor, and hence the common law rule "the debtor must find the creditor" should apply, allowing them to file the suit in Bharatpur where they resided. The trial judge, however, held that there was no such relationship between the parties. The appellate court agreed, and the plaintiffs contended that this conclusion was perverse and disregarded elementary principles of law. Upon review, it was held that the relationship between the parties was indeed that of a debtor and creditor. The court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, which states that where no place for performance is specified, the promisor must seek out the promisee. However, it was noted that this rule is mainly confined to ordinary debts and not applicable to Negotiable Instruments, payment of rent, or transactions between principals and agents. The court also referred to the Privy Council decision in Soniram Jeetmull v. R. D. Tata and Co., where it was held that the debtor must pay where the creditor resides unless there is a contrary agreement. 3. Existence of an Agreement Determining the Place of Payment: The plaintiffs argued that there was an agreement that the balance would be paid at Sibi, Pakistan. The trial judge rejected this, noting that the deposit was a separate transaction from the agency business and that the agreement could not be accepted, particularly given the condition in Ex. P-1 stating "Subject to the jurisdiction at Meerut." The appellate court found that the place of repayment was Meerut, not Sibi. This finding was based on the understanding that the money was deposited with the defendants to be utilized at Meerut for purchasing jaggery. The court concluded that there was an implied agreement that the place of performance would be Meerut, as indicated in Ex. P-1. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the plaintiffs could not invoke the common law rule to establish jurisdiction in Bharatpur. The place of payment was determined to be Meerut based on the implied agreement between the parties. Therefore, the suit was not properly instituted in Bharatpur, and the revision petition was rejected. There was no order as to costs.
|
