JUDGEMENT :- This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, directing the plaint in O. S. No. 155 of 1966 on his file to be returned for presentation to the appropriate court, on the ground that the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff attacks the order of the court below in this appeal.

2. In order to understand the basis of the lower court's order, it is necessary to set forth a few facts.

3. The Karur Vysia Bank, the appellant before me was the plaintiff in the court below, and it sued Ramachandra C. Oza (first defendant). The International Trading Co., Bombay (second defendant). Devakaran Nanjee Banking Co.. Bombay (third defendant) and the Kanara Bank Ltd., Bombay (fourth defendant) for the recovery of Rs.14,987.97 p. with future interest and costs upon the following averments -

4. On 13-12-1065, the first defendant applied to the plaintiff's bank at Coimbatore for a demand draft on a Bombay bank in favour of the second defendant for a sum of Rs.15.03. Plaintiff thereupon issued on that day a crossed cheque for Rs.15.03 p. The cheque itself was drawn on the 4th defendant bank at Bombay and the amount was payable to the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that its officers had drawn the cheque with usual care and diligence by clearly writing in the cheque the amount of Rs.15.03 p. in words and figures. The counterfoil of the cheque (No. 4019P4) was produced by the plaintiff into court, in support of its allegation that the cheque was issued only for Rs. 15.03 p. On 30-12-1965, the 4th defendant issued a wire to the plaintiff asking for the correct amount for which this cheque No. 401994 had been issued in favour of the second defendant on 13-12-1965. By a wire and letter, the plaintiff made it clear to the 4th defendant that the cheque was drawn only for Rs. 15.03 p. The plaintiff however received a letter dated 3-1-1966 from the 4th defendant to the effect that the cheque No. 401994 had been presented to the 4th defendant by the third defendant on 23-12-1965 and that the 4th defendant had paid the of Rs. 15,003, which appeared to be the amount for which the cheque had been issued. The 4th defendant in its letter, while explaining its own conduct in paying the higher amount, informed the plaintiff that the matter had been placed in the hands of the Police and that it would advise the plaintiff about further developments later on.

5. It was in these circumstances, that the 4th defendant debited the plaintiff's account with a sum of Rs. 15,003 instead of with a sum of Rs. 15.03 p. The complaint of the plaintiff was that defendants 1 and 2 and or, others, on their behalf, had daringly and fraudulently altered the original figure of Rs. 15.03 found in the cheque into Rs. 15,003. The plaintiff claimed recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 14,987.97 from defendants 1 and 2 on the basis that they had acted fraudulently and dishonestly enriched themselves. The plaintiff claimed the same amount from defendants 3 and 4 on the ground that inasmuch as they had failed to detect the fraudulent alterations in the cheque, they were guilty of dereliction of duty and gross negligence in the matter of honouring the cheque which has been fraudulently and materially altered.

6. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third defendant, and the 4th defendant, who had at branch at Coimbatore, filed answers in which they contended that the Coimbatore Sub-Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to them the suit being one for damages for wrongful payment and the plaintiff having failed to allege as to where the alteration of the figures in the cheque had been effected, it is only the Bombay court which has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and not the Coimbatore court. This objection prevailed with the court below.

7. Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, reads as follows :-

"Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document