Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 674 (MAD)

Ashnil Movers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh Singh & Another

2009-03-04

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment Inveighing and impugning the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.No.15533 of 2007 in O.S.No.7553 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the suit O.S.No.7553 of 2005 seeking the following relief: to direct the defendant to pay the second plaintiff herein a sum of Rs.4,60,264/- with intrest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date hereof until payment in full, being a commercial cause. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement; whereupon the trial commenced; the chief examination affidavit on the plaintiffs side was filed and documents were marked. When the matter was pending for crossexamination of PW1, I.A.No.15533 of 2007 was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to return the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. After hearing both sides, the lower court dismissed the said I.A. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 3. Despite printing the names concerned, none appeared and there is no representation on their behalf. 4. A plain perusal and poring over of the typed set of papers including the copy of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and display, exemplify and expatiate that the suit was filed by the respondents herein for recovery of money with interest in relation to the damage caused to the cars entrusted by the first plaintiff with the defendant for transporting them to a destination at Satna, Madhya Pradesh; the damage occurred outside Tamil Nadu; according to the plaintiffs, those cars were entrusted to the defendant at Chennai by virtue of the receipts issued by the defendant, even though physical entrustment of the vehicles took place within Sriperumbudur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The lower Court au fait with law interpreted the term "cause of action" and held that part of the cause of action actually took place within Chennai city as the lorry receipts acknowledging the entrustment of the car with the defendant by the first plaintiff were issued. The lower Court au fait with law interpreted the term "cause of action" and held that part of the cause of action actually took place within Chennai city as the lorry receipts acknowledging the entrustment of the car with the defendant by the first plaintiff were issued. Inasmuch as such issuance of lorry receipts acknowledging the entrustment of the cars is not an empty formality but they are having legal significance and that they also constitute the contract between the first plaintiff and the defendant, ex facie and prima facie I could see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the lower court. Simply because, actually the cars were physically entrusted to the defendant at Sriperumbudur, the issuance of said lorry receipts in Chennai would not lose significance to attract Chennai Courts jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.15533 of 2007 No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.