CM(M) 781/2014

Page 1 of 3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) No. 781/2014 & C.M.Nos.13842/2014 &13843/2014

%

26^th August , 2014

INDER PAL JUNEJA

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.Ashok Kr.Juneja, Advocate.

versus

THE COMMERICAL BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE URBAN

(S.E.) THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

07.5.2014 by which the trial court has returned the plaint under Order VII

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing the suit in the

competent court at Rohtak.

2. The subject suit is a suit for recovery of damages for malicious

prosecution. Malicious prosecution is alleged to be caused by the

respondent/defendant to the petitioner/plaintiff on account of filing of a false

2014:DHC:4162

CM(M) 781/2014

Page 2 of 3

criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Rohtak, and which was

dismissed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment dated

28.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Challenge by

the respondent/defendant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to the order dismissing the complaint under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC was also

dismissed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated

13.10.2010.

3. In view of the abovestated factual position, a reading of the plaint

shows that the cause of action with respect to malicious prosecution has

arisen at Rohtak and not at Delhi.

4. The courts at Delhi would only have territorial jurisdiction when

whole or part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, but in the present case

since

the

suit

is

for

malicious

prosecution

on

account

of

respondent/defendant having filed a false complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC and which was

filed/prosecuted at Rohtak and thereafter in the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana, hence, no part of cause of action can be said to have accrued at

Delhi so far as the subject suit for malicious prosecution is concerned.

2014:DHC:4162

CM(M) 781/2014

Page 3 of 3

5. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order

returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and the petition is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 26, 2014

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

KA

2014:DHC:4162