A court holds territorial jurisdiction over a suit if the defendant's registered office is located within its limits or if a part of the cause of action arises therein. Such determination must be based primarily on the plaintiff's unrebutted pleadings and supporting documentation.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter 'CPC') by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, assailing the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned DJ-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the Trial Court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff, a freight forwarding company and an IATA approved freight forward agent, instituted the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.14,15,144/- alongwith interest against the respondent/defendant company on account of outstanding dues arising from shipment and forwarding services rendered by the plaintiff for consignments booked by the defendant for foreign destination. The suit was originally instituted against the defendant company as well as its directors, however, the directors were subsequently deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 08.12.2020 and the proceedings continued only against defendant. Despite service, the defendant company failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte before the Trial Court. It was the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to an oral arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff used to book consignments on behalf of the defendant, raise airway bills and invoices, and maintain a running account in respect thereof. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.9,84,084.45 remained outstanding as on 31.03.2014 and despite issuance of post-dated cheques by the defendant towards part payment, the same were dishonoured upon presentation. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and thereafter instituted the aforesaid recovery suit in Delhi. However, it was held that the cause of action pertained to Mumbai.

3. In view of the non-appearance of the respondent, and upon perusal of the affidavit of service placed on record reflecting that service has been effected upon the respondent through their counsel. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hear arguments on behalf of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Trial Court has erred in returning the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction despite a part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi. It is submitted that the plaintiff had pleaded that the consignments were handed over at its Delhi office, payments and dishonoured cheques were received and presented in Delhi, and the accounts pertaining to the transactions were maintained in Delhi. Learned counsel contends that under Section 20(c) CPC, even if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, such Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

6. The issue involved in the present appeal pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit instituted by the plaintiff. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 20 of CPC, which governs the institution of suits based on the residence/business of the defendant and the place where the cause of action arises, and reads as under:-

“20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.-

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defe