Heard counsel for the revisionist.
The instant revision is directed against the order dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonbhadra.
By this order, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonbhadra has returned the plaint of the suit filed by the revisionist for presentation before the appropriate forum on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit for recovery of money on the ground that certain goods had been supplied by it to the defendant.The bills raised in regard to this remained, unpaid. A copy of the plaint of the suit has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application.
Counsel for the revisionist has laid emphasis on the averment contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint, wherein it has been averred that the plaintiff on numerous occasions called upon the defendants for payment of the unpaid bills and that, letters were sent demanding the balance payments. In response, the defendant, by letters dated 11.05.2000 and 28.08.2001, assured that the outstanding two bills would be paid within a month.
It is also averred that apart from the above, the defendant informed the plaintiff revisionist, vide letter dated 22.09.2001, that the defendant had been registered as a sick Industrial Company before the BIFR and the payment due, would be made soon.
The main contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the suit has rightly been filed before the Court at Sonbhadra. The contract between the parties was for supply of aluminium chloride which was supplied from the unit of the plaintiff situated at Sonbhadra. Aluminium Chloride being manufactured at the said unit and at no other place.
On the basis of the above, the case of the revisionist is that part of cause of action arose at Sonbhadra and in ignoring this aspect of the matter, the trial Court has erred materially.
It is also submitted that the various bills, which have been submitted for supply of aluminium chloride under the contract, have not been disputed by the defendants.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order.
The following facts, which are relevant to decide the controversy raised in this revision are to find illegality and irregularity in the impugned order dated 12.09.2003.
The plaintiff M/S Kanoria Chemicals And Industries Ltd. is a company having registered office at Calcutta. An order was placed by the defendant M/s Global Drugs Private Limited for supply of aluminium chloride. The registered office of M/s Global Drugs Private Limited is admittedly situated at Hyderabad while its factory is situated at Medak in Andhra Pradesh. It is also admitted that the purchase order was placed at the plaintiff's Chennai Office. The aluminium chloride was required to be supplied at Medak in Andhra Pradesh and it was duly supplied there.
Apart from the above, the impugned order also refers to the various communication, between the parties. The letters that had been written by the plaintiff were addressed to M/s Global Drugs Private Limited, Chennai Branch. However, it is not clear as to from which place, these letters were dispatched by the plaintiff. However, since these letters/communications were signed by one Sri Mukim, who on the basis of Paper No. 14 Ga, was found to be employed in the Chennai branch of M/s Kanoria Chemicals and Industrial Limited, the plaintiff.
In the aforesaid, factual background, the Court below came to the conclusion that with regard to the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, no cause of action arose at Sonbhadra.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in Laxman Prasad Vs.Prodigy Electronics Ltd and another, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618, primarily upon paragraph 46 of the said judgement, which is extracted herein below-
"46. Territorial jurisdiction of a court, when the plaintiff intends to invoke jurisdiction of any court in India, has to be ascertained on the basis of the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Since a part of "cause of action' has arisen within the local limits of Delhi as averred in the plaint by the plaintiff Company, the question has to be considered on the basis of such averment. Since it is alleged that the appellant-defendant had committed breach of agreement by using trade mark/trade name in Trade Fair, 2005 in Delhi, a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The plaintiff Company, in the circumstances, could have filed a suit in Delhi. So far as applicability of law is concerned, obviously as and when the suit will come up for hearing, the Court will interpret the cause and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It has, however, nothing to do with the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court."
In my considered opinion, the judgement cited is not relevant for the controversy involved in the instant revision. This Court while deciding the instant revision, is required to a rule, as to whether, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, any cause of action or part thereof arose at Sonbhadra only then would the suit lie at Sonbhadra.
In the judgement cited above, it has been held that although there existed a contract between the parties, specifying the terms of that contract would be interpreted in terms of law prevalent in Hong Kong, however, since part of the cause of action arose in India, the matter would necessarily have to be decided in accordance with the Indian law and not according to the law of Hong kong.
I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court, returning the plaint on the ground that no cause of action arose at Sonbhadra.
The contract for supply of the materials was entered into Chennai. The materials were supplied at the factory of the defendant at Medak, Andhra Pradesh. The registered offices of the plaintiff and the defendant are admittedly situated in Calcutta and Hyderabad, respectively. The jurisdiction of the courts at Sonbhadra is being invoked only on the ground that material was produced and supplied from the unit of the plaintiff situated at Sonbhadra on the plea that part of the cause of action arose at Sonbhadra.
The place from where these goods were supplied would not materially altered nor would be necessarily require to be look into the suit.
The suit in essence is a money suit, filed claiming breach of a contract for supply of aluminium chloride, which was duly supplied but payment for suit supply has not been made or has been made in part only. The plaintiff therefore, needs to allege and prove the contract; that the material has been supplied but payment has not been made. In this context, the place from where the aluminium chloride was dispatched to the defendant is not relevant. It is neither required to be alleged or proved, nor will the said fact materially effect the outcome of the suit. The place from where the goods were supplied therefore is not a fact which is required within the bundle of facts. Comprising the cause of action of the suit itself.
Cause of action are those bundle of facts which need to be traversed in the suit before any relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Any fact which is not relevant for deciding the suit does not constitute the cause of action. In the case at hand all that is required to be established is that goods under the purchase order, placed by the defendant, were supplied but not paid for. The place from where the goods were supplied is not material and for the same reason it is not a relevant fact, constituting the cause of action. Therefore, the same cannot be made a ground to claim that part of the cause of action arose at Sonbhadra.
In view of the foregoing discussion and since the judgement cited by counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is not found to suffer from any illegality or any manifest or jurisdictional error, warranting interference.
The revision is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 sushma