1962 (2) TMI 130 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge at Ratangarh to try the suit.
2. Interpretation of Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the place where the cause of action arises.
3. Relationship between the parties (principal and agent) and its impact on jurisdiction.
4. Application of the principle "debtor must seek the creditor."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge at Ratangarh to Try the Suit
The primary issue was whether the Civil Judge at Ratangarh had jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff, a firm at Ratangarh, filed a suit against the defendant, a firm at Kota, for the recovery of money. The Civil Judge at Ratangarh initially held that he did not have jurisdiction, a decision confirmed by the District Judge, Bikaner. The plaintiff contended that the cause of action partly arose at Ratangarh because payments were made there, and the goods were consigned to Ratangarh.

2. Interpretation of Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Regarding the Place Where the Cause of Action Arises
The judgment delved into the interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC, which states that a suit can be instituted where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The court referred to previous cases and legal provisions to determine the correct interpretation. It was noted that the deletion of Explanation III to Section 17 of the Code of 1882 and the addition of the words "wholly or in part" in Section 20(c) of the present Code did not change the law for suits based on contracts. The court emphasized that the cause of action includes all facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment.

3. Relationship Between the Parties (Principal and Agent) and Its Impact on Jurisdiction
The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was that of principal and agent. The court examined whether this relationship affected the jurisdiction. The defendant argued that suits by a principal against a commission agent should be filed where the agent carries on business. However, the court distinguished between suits for rendition of accounts and suits for recovery of money. It concluded that a suit for recovery of money could be filed where part of the cause of action arose, such as where the payment was made.

4. Application of the Principle "Debtor Must Seek the Creditor"
The court also considered the principle that in the absence of an agreement specifying the place of payment, the debtor must seek the creditor. In this case, the transactions created a debtor-creditor relationship, and the plaintiff, residing in Ratangarh, was entitled to file the suit there. The court cited previous decisions supporting this principle, reinforcing that the plaintiff could sue in Ratangarh.

Conclusion:
The revision application was allowed, and the order of the District Judge returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court was set aside. The Civil Judge, Ratangarh, was directed to try the suit in accordance with the law. The court concluded that part of the cause of action arose at Ratangarh, giving it jurisdiction. The parties were directed to bear their own costs for the revision application.