L. Narsimha Reddy J.—The question that arises for consideration in this C.R.P. is, as to whether it is competent for the holder in due course of a negotiable instrument to institute a suit in a court within whose jurisdiction the endorsement on the instrument takes place.

2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 57 of 1999 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, against the respondents for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 20.9.95. The promissory note is said to have been executed by the respondents in favour of one Dasari Vijaylakshmi. She, in turn had endorsed the promissory note in favour of the petitioner on 1.4.98, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000, at Kavali.

3. The respondents filed written statement. They pleaded that they did not borrow any amount from Dasari Vijayalakshmi and denied execution of the promissory note. They have also disputed her capacity to lend the amount. One of the contentions raised by them is, that they are the residents of Ongole proper, and no cause of action has arisen at Kavali.

4. At one stage, the matter came to be dealt with by this court in C.R.P. No. 592 of 2001. It was disposed of on 25.6.2001, di