The jurisdiction of courts in civil matters is determined by the location of payments made, as established under Section 20 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.613329/2016.

2. The petitioner is the defendant before the learned Trial Court. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,43,209.68/-. In the suit, the respondent/plaintiff claimed that it was a well-known manufacturer providing portfolio of solutions for packaged power, diversified generation, electrical control and safety and energy optimisation. The petitioner/defendant was one of its several regional stockists and distributors, who were appointed to procure/buy goods being traded by the respondent/plaintiff and supply them to wholesalers and retailers of the respondent/plaintiff in the market, who, in turn, would sell the same to the consumers.

3. It was stated by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint that with every supply of requisite number of goods effected by the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant, an invoice was raised and on delivery of the goods, the invoice along with the driver's copy of delivery challan was duly signed by the petitioner/defendant, as a mark of satisfaction.

4. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that it had a running current account with the petitioner/defendant against which a statement of account/ledger was regularly maintained by it in the normal course of business. No dispute had so far been raised by the petitioner/defendant against the supply effected by the respondent/plaintiff. On the basis of various invoices issued from 30th November, 2010 till 30th April, 2011, a sum of Rs.55,55,335.10/- had been payable by the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff affirmed that till that date, it had received a sum of Rs.24,72,616.42/- along with Rs.15,000/-, which was received by it after a Legal Notice had been issued to the petitioner/defendant for dishonour of cheques. Thus, a sum of Rs.28,43,209.68/- against several invoices was due and payable by the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

5. The petitioner/defendant has not disputed that it used to place orders for supply of goods upon the respondent/plaintiff and that there were business transactions between the parties. The petitioner/defendant denied owing any amount to the respondent/plaintiff as it had not ordered for inverters, batteries, etc., which the respondent/plaintiff had sent to it and when this was brought to the notice of the respondent/plaintiff, on their instructions, the petitioner/defendant had sent the goods to another distributor of the respondent/plaintiff located at Asansol, West Bengal. However, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/defendant was to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to try the suit.

6. It was claimed that the orders were placed by the petitioner/defendant, which was located at Suri, Birbhum, West Bengal, to the regional office at Kolkata, where the respondent/plaintiff took orders for supply of goods, which were then sent from the respondent's godown at Kolkata, to the petitioner/defendant at Suri, District Birbhum, West Bengal. It was further submitted that the cheque stated to have been dishonoured was actually a cheque given towards security and the same had been delivered at the office of the respondent/plaintiff at Kolkata and was also issued from there. Invoices were also issued from the Kolkata office. As such, it was submitted, that as no part of the transaction had taken place in Delhi, and since no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, the suit could not have been filed at Delhi.

7. The learned Trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction. After considering the arguments submitted before it by both sides and the judgments cited and relied upon by both sides, the learned Trial Court concluded vi