JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be allowed.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant preferred the underlying civil suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs along with interest, claiming that he had provided a friendly loan of Rs.10 lacs to the respondent. It was averred that the said sum was transferred from the appellant’s account maintained with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Savita Vihar Branch, Delhi. The appellant had further claimed that towards discharge of its liability to pay the said amount, the respondent had issued cheque no. 000072 dated 03.03.2016 for Rs.10 lacs

drawn on HDFC Bank, Bellari Branch, Karnataka. The said cheque, when presented by the appellant at his bank in Delhi, got dishonoured. Claiming jurisdiction at Delhi, the appellant had sought recovery of the aforesaid amount.

3. While contesting the impugned order, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC without appreciating that the respondent had not taken any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court in the written statement; as such, no issue was framed on the said aspect. The application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be filed subsequently, and moreover, while there were a total of four suits filed by the appellant with respect to four different loan transactions, in the remaining suits where the loan was extended through cash/RTGS, similar applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to dismissed; however, in the present case, for no good reason, such an application was allowed. Learned counsel has further referred to Section 21 CPC to claim jurisdiction at Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while contesting the above submissions, contended that the respondent is located in Karnataka and no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. As per the averments, the loan amount was received by the respondent in his bank account in Karnataka. The promissory note and the receipt were also executed at Ballari and thus, merely because the appellant is located in Delhi, without any part of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court, it does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi.

5. The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit was raised by the respondent vide his application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The underlying suit was filed on 12.02.2019, the written statement came to be filed on 02.05.2019, and the issues were settled on 18.02.2021. Concededly, in the written statement, the respondent had not raised any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. In the suit, the appellant/plaintiff had claimed jurisdiction in paragraph 15, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“15. That Delhi courts has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present case as the defendant contacted the plaintiff and his family in Delhi, at C 185, East Gokalpur, Wazirabad Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi where the request was acceded to and Promissory note along with receipt were delivered by the defendant and for repayment of the amount the cheque was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff at the same address and this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the plaintiff provided money to the defendant through his bank account maintained at Karnataka Bank Ltd., Savita Vihar, Delhi - 110092 by way of RTGS, the cheque given by the defendant was also presented for encashment in the same bank account which was returned unpaid and dishonoured with the remarks ‘Account Blocked’ which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.”

6. Pertinently, in the written statement filed by the respo