This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff-Bank against the order dated 15th February, 2010 made in S.C.No.937/2009 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT., Bangalore returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a direction to present the same before the Court having jurisdiction to try the same.

2. The present appellant, who is plaintiff before the Court below, had filed a suit against the defendant in S.C.No.937/2009 for recovery of money contending that the defendant had availed membership of Cancard Visa under the plaintiff’s Cancard Scheme, on the basis of which, it had issued Cancard Visa bearing No.4543630200917003. The benefit under the Cancard Visa is that the Cancard Holder by complying with the requirement laid down in Cancard can purchase goods or avail services at or from any of the various approved member establishments spread over in India and Nepal and the defendant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the Cancard Scheme. He had also agreed to make payment within 15 days from the date of statement and the Cancard Holder was liable to pay service charges-cum-interest at the rate of 2.5% per month. He also had made use of the Cancard from time to time but failed to make payments. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 29.11.2008 demanding payment of outstanding liability of Rs.71,841/-. The cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant had applied for membership of Cancard Visa on 8.3.2006 when Visa Card was renewed on the other dates when he had made use of the same, etc.

3. The defendant filed his written statement admitting the membership of Cancard Visa under the Cancard Visa Scheme but denied that he had failed to make payments within 15 days from the date of monthly statement and that the Cancard Holder has to pay 10% of outstanding amount. He had also denied the fact that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,641/- and other charges to the plaintiff. It is his specific contention that he had not agreed for payment of interest at the rate of 2.5% per month; that he is the permanent resident of Kolkatta and had used the Cancard in Kolkatta only and therefore, filing of the suit at Bangalore is not maintainable since the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover Rs.71,841/- together with court cost and current and future interest at the rate of 2.5% p.m. compounded monthly?

3. What order?”

5. In order to establish the case, the plaintiff examined its Officer as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.5.

6. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court held that the defendant has proved that the Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 15.2.2010 returned the plaint to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a direction to present the same before the Court having jurisdiction to try the same. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

7. The respondent though served has remained unrepresented.

8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant.

9. Smt. Devika for Sri U.R. Nayak, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from want of exercise of jurisdiction in not appreciating the matter with proper judicial discretion and the Court below misinterpreting Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure has returned the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Court and hence, the order of the Court below is perverse and opposed to the well established principles of law. She further contended that the Court b