Dave, J.—The point which has been referred to this Court is "whether an assignment would give cause of action to the court where the assignment was made, though otherwise that court wou!d have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to the debt which was assigned."

2. It would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to the question before us. A money suit was filed by the plaintiffs Sensmal Sugarlal, who are non-petitioners No.l and 2 in this revision application in the court of Munsif Merta. Their case was that the defendant Abdul Gafoor who is petitioner in this Court owed a debt to defendants No. 2 and 3 who are non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 in this Court and that he executed a document in their favour on Falgun Sudi 5, Svt. 2005, whereby he promised to pay off the debt in two instalments. According to the plaintiffs, this debt was assigned by defendants No. 2 and 3 to them in consideration of a cash amount which they had obtained from them. The defendant-petitioner traversed the claim on several grounds. One of his objections was that he and defendants No. 2 and 3 were all residents of Khejarla, that transactions between them had taken place at Khejarla and therefore the Munsif Merta had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The plaintiffs assertion was that the debt was assigned to them by defendants No. 2 and 3 at Individ and therefore the Munsif Merta had certainly jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is not in dispute that Khejarla is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif Merta while Individ is within the jurisdiction of that court. The trial court framed issue No. 5 regarding its jurisdiction and decided it in favour of the plaintiffs The defendant thereupon presented a revision to this Court. The matter came for hearing before a Singal Bench. Since it was thought that the point involved in revision was one of importance and there was difference of opinion amongst some High Courts it was referred to a Division Bench. The same point was once considered in the case of Misrimal vs. Moda (1) by a Division Bench of this Court, but it was left undecided at that time.

3. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that his client and non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 are all residents of Khejarla, that the transactions between them took piece at Khejarla, that the debt, if any, was also payable at that place and therefore if non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 had brought a suit against the petitioner they could not file it in the court of Munsif, Merta. It is urged that by assigning the debt to the non petitioners No. 1 and 2, the non-petitioners No. 3 & 4 could not create a new forum for this case. According to learned counsel, the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of Munsif Merta and therefore he was not competent to entertain or decide this case. In support of his contention he has referred to the case of Jupiter General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Abdul Aziz(2).

4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand contends that since the assignment of the debt took place at Individ within the jurisdiction of the Munsif Merta, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court and therefore under sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code the trial courts decision about its jurisdiction is quite correct. The relevant portion of sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code on which both the parties rely runs as follows:—

Sec 20(c) "Subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local Limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

5. It is abundantly clear from the said provision that if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of a certain court that court would be competent to try a case. The real question for decision, therefore, is whether assignment of a debt gives to a cause of action in part. The answer to, this question would depend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document