ORDER :

1. This revision is filed against the order dated 22.01.2021, wherein and whereby, the court of XV Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - II Additional Family Judge, R.R. District, Kukatpally, dismissed I.A.No.1157/2020 in O.S.No.91 of 2020, filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 10(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to return the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that as per the plaint averments, the memorandum of understanding, based on which the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount, was executed at Vizianagaram, and that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. He submits that the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone have to be considered to decide the jurisdiction of the court. But the trial court has relied on the letter dated 3.4.2018, stated to have been written by the petitioners to the respondent along with partnership deed dated 15.04.2013. He submits that these documents do not form part of the plaint and they are neither received, nor marked, and hence they cannot be relied upon to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

3. Learned counsel submits that the alleged memorandum of understanding dated 26.06.2017 was executed at Vizianagaram, and the defendants also reside at Vizianagaram and the witnesses also reside at Vizianagaram. He further submits that the based on the alleged memorandum of understanding dated 26.06.2017, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge at Vizianagaram and obtained interim injunction. But the trial court without considering these aspects in proper perspective, passed the impugned order dismissing the interlocutory application and the same may bet set aside.

4. On the other hand Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent /plaintiff on caveat, submits that out of the total amount lent by the plaintiff to the defendants, major portion of the amount was received by the defendants at the office of the plaintiff at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and in the plaint there are specific assertions to this effect and even the ‘cause of action’ and ‘jurisdiction’ clauses in the plaint have clearly stated these facts. Therefore, the trial court considering the averments made in the plaint, dismissed the interlocutory application, and hence no exception can be taken.

5. In the plaint, the ‘cause of action’ and the ‘jurisdiction’ clauses reads as follows:

“9. Cause of Action: The cause of action arose when the defendant approached the plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.90 lakhs and Rs.288 lakhs put together Rs.378 lakhs out of which major amounts were received by the defendants at the office of the plaintiff from time to time at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, which was acknowledged by the defendants and executed MOU dated 26.06.2017.

10. Jurisdiction: The defendants executed the MOU dated 26.06.2017 acknowledging the debt borrowed by them at Flat No.103, Sivapuja Residency, Vivekananda Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and as such the Hon’ble Court is having jurisdiction to file the present suit.”

6. Along with the material papers, petitioners filed copy of the memorandum of understanding dated 26.06.2017 and it shows that it was executed at Visakhapatnam. But the above averments made in the plaint goes to show that major amounts were stated to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants at the office of the plaintiff at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Therefore, as per the averments made in the plaint, part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kukatpally. Considering this aspect apart from other grounds, the trial court came to the conclusion that it is not a case where the plaint should be returned by al