B.N. Karia, J.

The appellant-original defendant by this Appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ["the Code" for short], has challenged the judgment and order dated 19th February 2015 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Summary Civil Suit No. 1449 of 2014 allowing the suit by rejecting the application for leave to defend.

2. In order to adjudicate the controversy between the parties, at the outset, it is necessary cull out the facts of the case on hands to the extent of deciding the dispute raised before us.

3. In a Summary Civil Suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code, the defendant-original plaintiff [hereinafter referred to as, "the plaintiff"] sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,64,100/- from the appellant-original defendant [hereinafter referred to as, "the defendant"] towards the long standing dues to be paid by the defendant against the goods purchased by it.

4. Before the Court below, it was the case of defendant herein-original plaintiff that since the appellant-original defendant was interested in purchasing Enamelled Copper Winding Wire, it had approached the plaintiff and after settling on various terms and conditions and after verifying the quality of product, the defendant had placed purchase orders from time to time, and accordingly, the plaintiff had delivered the ordered goods from time to time, as per its specification and the same were also received by the defendant without any complaint and as per its request, the plaintiff maintained a running mutual account in the name of the defendant and whatever amount was paid were credited and whatever goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, the amount whereof was accordingly debited to its account.

5. It was further the case of the plaintiff that as per the agreed terms between the parties, the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of invoices which remained outstanding after due date, till its realization. It was further the case of the plaintiff before the Court below that being a distributor of the principal company, whatever the goods were despatched to the defendant were received by it without any objection, and therefore, there was no earthly reason for the defendant to now allege receipt of inferior quality of the goods, more particularly when the plaintiff started demanding outstanding dues. Hence, a suit came to be filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,64,100/- [which includes Rs. 19,86,024/- being the principal amount and Rs. 2,78,076/- towards interest calculated @ 24% per annum from November 2013] duly supported with substantiating evidence in the form of purchase orders; invoices; correspondence, etc. The suit was opposed by defendant terming it to be false, frivolous and vexatious.

6. On the jurisdictional aspect of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction since the contract was executed between the parties at Kalol, District Gandhinagar and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and the purchase orders given by the defendant were different.

7. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff had supplied inferior quality goods and therefore, the same were returned by the defendant. The averments made on behalf of the defendant came to be rebutted by the plaintiff by filing an affidavit Exh. 24, opposing grant of leave to defend Affidavit Exh. 16. The learned trial Court, after hearing the respective parties, decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 22,64,100/- together with interest @ 24% per annum; as per the agreement arrived at by and between the parties, giving rise to filing of the present Appeal.

8. On the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Civil Judge observed that looking at the invoices produced by the plaintiff on record, it clearly stipulates that the same were subject to Ahmedabad jurisdiction. The Court further went on to observe that the plaintiff was working fo