The judgment established that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even if a part of the cause of action arises in the court's jurisdiction, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of judgment dated 20th September, 2016 by which the suit filed by ICICI Bank (hereinafter 'Plaintiff Bank') has been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The bank filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.5,38,620.94/-.

2. In July, 2014, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff bank for a sum of Rs.5,11,200/- for purchase of a vehicle Maruti Swift VDI. The loan was repayable in 36 equal instalments of Rs.16,700/- each. Defendant paid merely two instalments and thereafter stopped making any payments. The Plaintiff bank issued a loan recall notice dated 13th January, 2015 and filed a suit for Rs.5,38,620.94/-. The details of the said amount are as under :

“10. The loan recall notice was issued on 13.01.2015, and thereafter suit was filed for the entire amount i.e. Rs. 5,38,620.94 as per following break up :      

3. The impugned judgment clearly records that the bank had placed on record all the relevant documents which are enumerated below :

“Ex.PW1/1 - Copy of Power of Attorney (OSR)

Ex.PW1/2 - Credit Facility Application Form

Ex.PW1/3 - Unattested Deed of Hypothecation

Ex.PW1/4 - Irrecoverable Power of Attorney

Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of loan recall notice

Ex.PW1/7 - Prepayment of car loan account notice

Ex.PW1/8 - Copy of statement of account.

Ex.PW1/9 - Certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1860”

4. The Trial Court further records that the witness for the bank Mr. Mohit Grover proved the statement of account. However, since the Defendant is residing in Haryana, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Before the Trial Court, the judgment of this court in ICICI Bank v. Saurabh Agarwal FAO No 133/2015 on 25th May, 2016 (hereinafter Saurabh Agarwal) was cited. However, the Trial Court relied upon Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod v. State of Maharastra & Anr. 2014 (9) SCC 129 and Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270 and therefore dismissed the suit.

5. A perusal of the documents on record show that the credit facility application form clearly mentions the bank’s address as New Delhi, VT which stands for the New Delhi office at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension. The dealer who has sold the vehicle is M/s. T.R. Sawheny Motors Pvt. Ltd, E-260, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. Schedule 1 of the attested deed of hypothecation mentions the ICICI Bank Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi as the bank’s branch. The irrevocable Power of Attorney also mentions the VT Delhi as the zonal/branch office. Page 67 is the statement of account, the original of which is stated to bear the stamp of the Videocon Tower office, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.

6. This court in ICICI Bank v. Astha Kumar & Anr. (2015) 224 DLT 651 (hereinafter 'Astha Kumar') has held that cause of action is a bundle of facts and there are several reasons why the court would have jurisdiction. In similar circumstances since the dealer through whom the disbursement was made was from Delhi and the statement of accounts bares the stamp of Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, this court held that the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction. The relevant portion of Astha Kumar (Supra) is extracted herein below :

“12. Apart from the above, there are: three reasons given for rejection of the plaint, which can be broadly paraphrased as follows. First, that the loan amount was disbursed directly to the dealer, namely, Auto Vikas Sales