9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include lack of territorial jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit, interpretation of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the application of the doctrine of dominus litus. Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,02,000 from the respondent in Saudi Arabia and executed a promissory note there. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal, Kerala, even though both parties were residing in Saudi Arabia. The Trial Judge dismissed the appellant's application challenging the court's jurisdiction, holding that the court had territorial jurisdiction as the defendant was a resident within its jurisdiction. The High Court, however, acknowledged that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction at the time of the suit but decided that the suit need not be returned as the defendant had permanently moved to India after the suit was filed. Interpretation of Section 20 of CPC: The High Court considered Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the jurisdiction of courts based on the defendant's residence or place of business. It was noted that the material date for invoking Section 20 is the institution of the suit, not any subsequent change in residence. The Court emphasized that the change of residence after the court's decision does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the court. Application of Doctrine of Dominus Litus: The doctrine of dominus litus, which gives the plaintiff the right to choose the forum for filing a suit, was discussed in relation to Sections 15 to 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was clarified that this doctrine does not apply when invoking Section 20, which specifies the places where a suit can be filed based on the defendant's residence or business location. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the court in Attingal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded in this case.
|
