The court held that a suit may be filed where any part of the cause of action arises, confirming territorial jurisdiction based on facts presented in the plaint.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails an order dated 6th April, 2021 in CS SCJ No. 50520/2016, whereby the application of the petitioner, as the defendant in the said suit, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

2. The respondent, as the plaintiff in the suit, alleged that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs.2,75,000/- to the petitioner refundable on or before 10th December, 2013. On the respondent approaching the petitioner seeking refund of the loaned amount, the plaint alleged that the petitioner had paid Rs.1,000/- in cash and handed over a post-dated cheque dated 28th April, 2014 for an amount of Rs.2,74,000/-. The aforesaid cheque was stated to have been presented to the State Bank of India, Kalkaji, New Delhi, on 29th April, 2014, whereupon it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Further repeated attempts by the respondent to request the petitioner to return the loan amount having failed, the respondent proceeded to file the aforesaid suit, seeking a decree against the petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,74,000/- along with interest pendente lite and future till the date of payment. The plaint also alleges that, out of the loan amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner from the Bank account of the respondent at Kalkaji, Delhi.

3. The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent for want of territorial jurisdiction. The said application has been rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge ("the learned ACJ") vide the impugned order dated 06th April, 2021. The impugned order holds that, as the plaint alleged that part payment of the loan had been made from the Bank account of the respondent at Kalkaji, and the cheque which was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent for Rs.2,74,000/- was also dishonoured at Delhi, the plaint could not be rejected at that stage on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid observation made by the Ld. ACJ, the petitioner approached this Court.

5. Mr. S. Sashi Bhusan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, interjects at this point to contend that the cheque of Rs.2,74,000/- was handed over to the respondent at Assam, though it was dishonoured on presentation at Delhi.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned ACJ has erred in rejecting the petitioner's contention that the respondent's suit was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways v. Prasad Trading Co., (1991) 4 SCC 270.

7. On a plain reading, Section 20¹ of the CPC, 1908, permits institution of a suit before a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides/carries on business, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The Explanation to Section 20 clarifies where, for the purposes of the said provision, a Corporation would be deemed to carry on business. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways (supra), on which learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance, essentially dealt with the scope of the Explanation to Section 20, where the suit was being sought to be institute