Point of Law : Return of plaint – Jurisdiction of Court- Work Contract - Cause of action for the institution of the suit has arisen at Raipur where the alleged contract was executed Hence Court has jurisdiction

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge to this appeal preferred by the Plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') is the order dated 01.03.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.05-B/2009, whereby the trial Court, while exercising the powers enumerated under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C., has returned the plaint for its presentation before the Court having its territorial jurisdiction.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff Itarasi Oil & Flour Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff'), a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act of 1956, a manufacturer and seller of Soya Oil and Soya D.O.C., has instituted a suit claiming a total sum of Rs.11,96,706/-submitting interaliathat the Defendant And Agro Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant') has agreed to purchase 1900 metric tons of soyabean D.O.C. at the rate of Rs.195 US $ per metric ton plus 5% of the export performance premium under a contract dated 21.03.2006, which was duly signed and executed through its broker namely, Puja Commodity having its registered office at Raipur. According to the Plaintiff, it supplied 1901.100 metric tons of Soya D.O.C. to the Defendant which was the total consideration of Rs.1,73,20,922/-at the rate of Rs.9,111/-per metric ton plus 5% premium under the invoice dated 27.03.2006. It is pleaded further that the Defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,63,47,371/-in pursuance of the said invoice through pay order dated 21.04.2006, while Rs.93,620/-through pay order dated 18.01.2007 against the said amount of Rs.1,73,20,922/-and has failed to deposit the rest of the amount of Rs.8,79,931/-despite issuance of legal notice dated 05.07.2007, giving rise to the institution of the suit for the recovery of dues of Rs.11,96,706/-, i.e. Rs.8,79,931 plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, instituted on 26.03.2009.

3. Despite service of summons of the suit, the Defendant has failed to appear and vide order dated 27.01.2011, it was proceeded ex parteand Plaintiff's evidence was thereafter recorded on 15.02.2011.

4. The trial Court has, however, returned the plaint vide its order impugned dated 01.03.2011 in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for its presentation before the competent Court having its territorial jurisdiction on finding that Defendant's registered office, as mentioned in the plaint, is beyond its jurisdiction and while referring to the Cash/Credit Memo (Ex.P-3) wherein jurisdiction was shown to be “subject to Itarasi jurisdiction”, it was, therefore, observed that the suit is instituted beyond its jurisdiction. This is the order which has been impugned by way of this appeal.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, since the contract was made at registered office of the Plaintiff's company at Raipur, and, therefore, the part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below and the suit as framed was, therefore, not liable to be returned as such. It is contended further that since the demand notice was made from Raipur, therefore, cause of action has arisen when Defendant's company has failed to honour the same. It is contended further that merely on the basis of the condition printed on the Bill (Ex.P-3), it cannot be said that the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, particularly, when the alleged contract was made at Raipur. In support, a reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem and R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163 and (1993) 2 SCC 130 respectively.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant, while placing its reliance upon the decision rendered in the matter of Swastik Gases Private Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limite