The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant had the option to file the suit in the court within the local limits of jurisdiction where the wrong occurred, as provided under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

1. A civil suit on file no 14/2019 titled “Vipan Kumar Vs Jyoti Angural” came to be returned by the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu vide its order dated 23.10.2021 on the ground of purported lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, and, thus, directing its return to be presented before the competent court of jurisdiction. Thus, by operation of rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu came to pass an order dated 23.10.2021 which left the plaintiff aggrieved constraining him to approach this Court with the present petition seeking setting aside of the said order dated 23.10.2021.

2. The petition does not bear reference as to under which provision of law the same has come to be filed, whereas Order 43 rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides an appeal against an order passed under rule 10 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 returning a plaint to be presented before a proper court. Therefore, the present petition is taken to be an appeal under Order 43 rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and is, accordingly, to be adjudicated as an appeal and thus, the petitioner is to be read and reckoned as an appellant in the case.

3. The appellant, as being the plaintiff, came to file a civil suit against the respondent thereby seeking a decree for damages for an amount of rupees five lac on account of malicious complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant. In his plaint, the appellant has averred that because of motivated and malicious complaint filed by the respondent against him, the appellant came to suffer loss of reputation for which the suit for compensation for the amount of rupees five lac came to be maintained by him against the respondent.

4. In the plaint, the appellant referred to the cause of action taking place on account of false complaint filed by the respondent before the Police Post Rajpura, District Samba followed by a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba and finally upon being summoned by the Police Station Rajpura, District Samba only to be absolved of the accusation made against him by the respondent but leaving the reputation of the appellant injured.

5. The appellant as a plaintiff has mentioned himself to be a resident of Janipur Colony, Jammu whereas the respondent, as being the defendant, has been mentioned to be a resident of Panjgrian Sainia, Tehsil Rajpura, District Samba. By reference to the fact that the appellant has suffered injury to his reputation, as such, the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu was said to be having the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6. Upon being summoned, the respondent appeared in the civil suit by filing the written statement by pressing a preliminary objection therein that the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu lacking the jurisdiction to entertain the suit saying that cause of action had purportedly accrued within the jurisdiction of District Samba and, therefore, under section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the suit in reference was to be maintainable in a court of law in the District Samba and not before the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu.

7. The trial Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu came to frame issues of law and facts in the suit in terms of its order dated 16.04.2021 which are reproduced as under:-

1. Whether this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and hear this suit? OPD

“2. Whether defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the plaintiff with a promise to repay the said amount in January, 2017? OPP

3. Whether on the failure of the defendant to repay the aforesaid borrowed amount when plaintiff and his wife on 13.06.2017 had gone to the house of defendant, they were attacked by defendant and her husband resultantly plaintiff’s wife had sustained injury and an FIR no. 69/2017 for offences under section