JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur on an application for rejection of plaint (Exhibit-16) in Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2016, whereby the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application preferred by the petitioners – defendants.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts, necessary for the determination of this petition, can be stated as under:

(a) Defendant no.1 had made a representation to the plaintiffs that he was the power of attorney of Sou. Kalpana Devidas Bonde and Devidas Kundalik Bonde, who owned the land bearing Gat No.988 admeasuring 7 H. 41 Are (‘the suit land’) situated at Mouje Darvali, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. Defendant no.1 professed to sell an area admeasuring 40 Are out of the suit land for a consideration of Rs.60,11,000/-. The plaintiffs were made to part with Rs.18,00,000/- towards consideration, in part.

(b) It transpired that defendant no.1 had no power to either represent the owners of the suit land or execute the conveyance, and the power of attorney shown to the plaintiffs was a fabricated document, to the execution of which the defendant nos.2 and 3 were shown as witnesses. As the fraud was unearthed, the plaintiffs confronted defendant no.1 and, thereupon, defendant no.1 executed a document on a stamp-paper of Rs.100/- denomination, on 14th March, 2014 and acknowledged the receipt of the consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- and assured to return the same.

(c) Defendant no.1, however, failed to repay the entire amount, and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- remained outstanding. Defendant no.1 delivered a cheque towards repayment of the said amount. However, it was returned unencashed. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, for recovery of the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, additional amount which was agreed to be paid to compensate the plaintiffs and, damages for the injury suffered by the plaintiffs.

(d) Defendant nos.1 and 2, preferred an application purported to be under Order VII order 11 of the Code on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court at Islampur. The suit property was located at Mouje Darvali, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The agreement for sale in respect of the suit property was concluded at Pune. Defendant no.1 had agreed to repay the amount which was allegedly paid by the plaintiffs, as the transaction did not materialise, at Pune. Nor the defendants reside within the jurisdiction of the Court at Islampur. Thus, the Court at Islampur had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

(e) The learned Civil Judge, after consideration of the material on record and submissions of the parties, was persuaded to reject the application. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the suit has not been instituted by the plaintiffs for the specific performance of the contract for sale nor for recovery of the amount thereunder. The plaintiffs have also claimed compensation for the injury caused to the plaintiffs on account of the acts and conduct of the defendants. The fact that the plaintiffs had also sought the refund of the outstanding amount was not of determinative significance. The learned Judge adverted to the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Code, and concluded that suit being essentially one for wrong to the person of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs could legitimately institute the suit either in the Court within the local limits of which the wrong was done or where the defendants reside or carried on business or personally worked for gain. Opining that the wrong to the person of the plaintiffs was caused within the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction, the lea