The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action, including the execution of the loan agreement and the place of payments, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and a court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a substantial part of the cause of action does not arise within its jurisdiction.

Rajiv Shakdher, J.:-

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ-II Central/Delhi, dated 16.04.2015. The learned ADJ by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree has returned the plaint.

1.1 The appellant (i.e. the plaintiff in the suit), being aggrieved, has moved this court by way of the instant appeal.

2. The brief facts, which one is required to note, in order to adjudicate upon this appeal are as follows:

2.1 It is the case of the appellant that it had extended a loan to the respondents herein (i.e. the defendants), for purchase of a vehicle. The agreement arrived at in this regard was translated into a loan agreement/ a credit facility application form dated 20.01.2012 (hereafter referred to as the loan agreement). Along with the loan agreement, two sets of documents were also executed, firstly, an unattested deed of hypothecation; and secondly, an irrevocable power of attorney (collectively referred to as documents). The said documents were also executed on the same date i.e. 20.01.2012.

2.2 With the execution of the loan agreement, and aforementioned documents, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is said to have been disbursed in favour of the respondents for purchase of vehicle described as: Aveo/ 1.4 LT, bearing registration No. DL 10 CB-3763. The said sum, according to the appellant, was disbursed on 23.01.2012, and in terms of the loan agreement, it was required to be paid in 60 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs), equivalent to an amount of Rs. 11,315/- each.

2.3 The appellant, claims, that the respondents breached their obligations under the loan agreement, in as much as, they defaulted in regular payments of EMIs. The attempts of the appellant to retrieve the situation, apparently, failed, which prompted issuance of a notice of demand dated 13.01.2015. By this demand notice the appellant recalled the loan and, consequently, foreclosed the loan agreement.

2.4 It is the stand of the appellant that, despite, issuance of the aforementioned notice, the respondents, failed to make payment of the amounts referred to in the said notice.

2.5 According to the appellant, as on 04.02.2015, a sum of Rs. 3,00,936.56/- is due and payable by the respondents.

3. It is in these circumstances, that the appellant had moved the trial court with an action for recovery of the aforementioned amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, commencing from 04.02.2015 till its realization. Relief, in the form of cost, was also sought.

4. The suit came to be filed and assigned on 15.04.2015. On this date, the learned ADJ registered the suit and directed listing of the suit, on 16.04.2015, for hearing arguments on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction.

4.1 It is in this background that the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed.

5. Being aggrieved, as indicated above, an appeal was preferred, in which a notice was issued on 14.07.2015. Despite, service of notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Consequently, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, in the matter, on 30.09.2015.

6. Mr Bhalla, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the learned ADJ had failed to take into account the provisions of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC), which were, clearly applicable in the facts of the present case.

6.1 It was the learned counsel’s submission that having regard to the facts obtaining and pleaded in the plaint, it could not have been held that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The facts, to which, my attention was drawn by Mr. Bhalla, were: the date and place of execution of the loan agreement along with the security documents. The statement of account of the concerned branch of the bank (i.e. the Videocon Tower branch, located at Jhandenwalan Extension, New Delhi), which was, according to him, demonstrative of the fact that the EMIs which were paid, and those, in respect of which th