importan points
Question of exercise of jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the statute would not arise.
Application of doctrine of dominus litus is confined only to the cause of action falling within Sections 15 to 18 of the Code and not where the provision of Section 20 is sought to be invoked.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Two Thousand Only) from the respondent. The said transaction was carried out at Saudi Arabia. Appellant executed a promissory note on 8.5.1999. Admittedly, the parties were residing at Saudi Arabia at the relevant time. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal. Respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the aforementioned amount in the Subordinate Court at Attingal. Although both the parties were residing in Saudi Arabia, Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal for recovery of the said amount sometime in the year 2002. Appellant having been summoned, appeared in the suit. He, inter alia, raised an issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the said court to entertain the suit. By an Order dated 15.3.2005, the application of the appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Judge holding:

“Admittedly the transaction took place at Riyadh in Soudi Arabia which is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. According to the defendant since the transaction took place beyond jurisdiction of this court it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At the same time plaintiff would contend that this court has territorial jurisdiction since the defendant is a resident within the jurisdiction of this court. As per Section 20(a) C.P.C. every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. From the address given in the plaint and from the averments in the plaint it can be seen that defendant is a resident of Kadinamkulam Village which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Defendant himself has no case that he is not a resident within the jurisdiction of this Court. That being so this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Contention to the contrary raised by the defendant is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. Issue No. 1 is thus found in favour of the plaintiff.”

3.Appellant filed a civil revision thereagainst before the High Court of Kerala which was marked as CRP No. 820 of 2005. By reason of the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the said Court relying or on the basis of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and upon placing the legislative history of the said provision, opined :

“20. Thus I agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that strictly the court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the date of the suit. The question of the nature of relief that has to be granted to the defendant arises for consideration now. Even if the suit were to be returned, on admitted facts that has to be represented to the same court now as admittedly after the filing the suit the petitioner/defendant is residing permanently, actually and voluntarily in India. Any and every error will not persuade the court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction has to be invoked only in aid of justice. I take note that there is no serious dispute raised about liability or the execution of the promissory Note. There is also no serious contention that if the plaint were returned accepting the plea regarding jurisdiction, it has to be represented to the same court as by then the petitioner had started permanent, actual and voluntary residence in India. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the suit is liable to be considered and disposed of by the court of Subordinate Judge of Attingal and the same need not be directed to be returned.”

4.Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court itself having arrived at a finding that the suit was not maintainable, could not have refused to exercise its revisional jurisdicti