Bapna, J.—This is an appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Balotra, dated 28.7. 1955 directing return of the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs Ramkaran, Bhanwarlal, Remeshwar Lal, Ramrakh and Jasraj instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Balotra, on 12.3.1951, against Gulab Chand, a resident of Kanpur, on the following allegations: The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 carried on business at Karachi in the name and style of Ramkaran, Bhanwarlal. Owing to disturbances following the partition of the former Dominion of India, the plaintiffs being Hindus had to close their shop at Karachi, which became part of Pakistan, and came to Balotra as displaced persons, and had been living there as such. It was alleged that the defendant had a shop at Kanpur under the name and style of Nanagram Chauthmal. It was alleged that the plaintiffs firm at Karachi had certain dealings with the Kanpur firm, as a result whereof the plaintiffs were entitled to recover Rs. 5,147/6/6 inclusive of interest on their claim. The grounds on which the suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Balotra, were—

(1) That the defendant had agreed to remit the amount at Balotra;

(2) That it was the duty of the debtor to find out the creditors who lived at Balotra;

(3) That the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 had assigned one-fourth of their claim to Jasraj at Balotra;

(4) That the plaintiffs were displaced persons, and entitled to institute the suit where they were residing. (Paras 8 and 10 of the plaint).

3. The defendant traversed the various allegations in the plaint, pleaded payment of all dues except a sum of Rs. 500/-, and denied that the Court at Balotra had jurisdiction.

4. The learned Civil Judge, after recording the evidence, found against the plaintiffs on ail the grounds made out for instituting the suit at Balotra, and order of 28 July,, 1955, directed return of the plaint under O. VII, r. 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure for presenting the same in a court of competent jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that a large number of documents had been submitted in the trial court in order to prove that the defendant had agreed to remit the amount due to the plaintiffs at Balotra, but these were wrongly rejected. He has made an application today explaining why the originals could not be produced in the trial court. It is mentioned in the application that the copies of the documents required to be submitted has been presented along with the plaint accompanied by a list, but the originals were not submitted, because a practice had grown up in the courts of the former Jodhpur State whereby only the copies were submitted to the court, and the originals remained with the lawyer or his client for ready reference, and produced in court whenever necessary. I find from a reported decision of this Court in Dalu vs. Jubarmal (1) that that was a kind of practice prevalent in the former Jodhpur State nearabout the period when this suit was instituted. The Civil Rules, which required the original documents to be produced, were framed by this Court in 1952, and I hope the parties are not keeping back the original documents now. I would have remanded the case after admitting the documents, but I am of the view that the lower court had jurisdiction on another ground, which I shall mention hereafter.

6. The second ground that the debtor should find the creditors, and as the creditors were living at Balotra, that court had jurisdiction has no force. The plaintiffs on their own showing were displaced persons, and while it may be said that the debtor was under an obligation to remit the amount to Karachi, where the plaintiffs firm existed, the law would not require the debtor to make a search of the creditor, and then to remit the money, for aught we know the plaintiffs might have settled at any other place in India.

7. The third ground that the assignment of a part of the debt made a part of the cause of action to arise at Balotra is also, in my opinion, untenab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document