The burden of proving the facts lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, and the trial court's procedure must adhere to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 08.12.2015. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,37,483.48/-. It is urged that the respondent had approached the petitioner for grant of a loan of Rs.9,74,400/- for purchase of two construction equipments, namely, “GEN SET 125 KVA.” The parties entered into a loan agreement under the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Scheme of the petitioner Bank. The respondent executed various documents and agreed to pay the loan in 35 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,74,400/- under two loan accounts. The loan amount was disbursed to the dealer of the equipment.

2. Since there was default in repayment of the monthly instalment, the petitioner claims to have, in terms of the loan document, recalled the loan facility by sending a recall notice dated 25.08.2015. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed.

3. When the suit came up for hearing, the trial court instead of issuing summons to the respondent passed the following orders:-

“The plaintiff claims that though the defendants No. 1 and 2 are residing and working for gain at NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh and the defendant No. 3 in Rohini i.e. North-West District, yet part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in as much as the loan documents have been executed at Videocon Tower, Jhandelwalan. Let the affidavit of the concerned officer in whose presence the said documents were executed at Videocon Tower branch of the plaintiff bank be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing.

Further, the perusal of the statement of account shows that over due charges have been charged multiple times. Why this has been done is not clear. Let the affidavit of the competent officer of the plaintiff be filed explaining as to how the overdue charges have been imposed multiple times as reflected from the statement of account. The officer shall also inform this court as to how many instalments have already been received and how many instalments have been fallen due till the date of filing of the suit and the amount thereof. Further, an information be also furnished as to whether the instalment has been received after the service of the notice. He shall also personally appeal and inform this court the last payment received and the defaulted amount and when the said notice with regard to the last default was issued. He shall also explain the discrepancies in the statement of account and shall also file a fresh statement of account.”

4. It may be noted that in some other connected matters, the trial court had prior to issuance of summons, returned the plaint stating that the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction. In an appeal being FAO No. 381/2015 vide order dated 06.11.2015, this court set aside the aforesaid order of the trial court holding that at this stage a cause of action is shown to arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and that the trial court has erred in concluding and observing that the loan agreement and the attendant documents do not appear to have been executed at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. This court held that this aspect was a matter for trial and the trial court could not have, at the threshold, returned the plaint on a mere impression. The matter was remanded back. The trial court has now passed the impugned order.

5. The trial court has issued directions to the petitioner to file an affidavit of the concerned official in whose presence the documents were executed at Videocon Tower Branch of the petitioner Bank. This court vide order dated 06-11-2015 held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was a matter of trial and that the trial court could not have, at the threshold, returned the plaint on a mere impression. Despite the said order, the trial court has passed the above noted directions.

6. A further perusal of the impugned order shows that apart from directions re