Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1133 (HP)

Hazari Nand v. Bal Krishan Rawat

2019-08-09

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned order dated 7.12.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., whereby the learned District Judge, Shimla has transferred the case No. 132-1 of 2012/243/1 of 2012/13 from the Court of Civil Judge, Court No. 6, Shimla, to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jubbal. 2. As per the petitioner,/defendant the respondent/plaintiff maintained a suit for recovery against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Shimla, HP . The suit was for recovery on the ground that plaintiff/respondent used to give advance to apple growers at his own risk. It has further been alleged in the plaint that plaintiff/respondent gave advance to the petitioner/defendant, when he approached the plaintiff/respondent in his office at Sarsvati Nagar in Tehsil Jubbal as advance, but the defendant/petitioner has not sent apple boxes. Hence, the present petition. The suit is pending adjudication and the plaintiff/respondent is resident of Vill. Khauni, PO Sarsvati Nagar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. and the petitioner/defendant was resident of Tikkar (Diswani) PO Kaloti, Sub Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla. As per learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Shimla has transferred the case from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 6, Shimla to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jubbal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has argued that the case is required to be heard at Shimla as the petitioner/defendant is resident of Chirgaon, District Shimla. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that the cause of action has accrued at Jubbal, the same has rightly been transferred to the court of learned Civil Judge, Jubbal and the impugned order dated 7.12.2019 needs no interference. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 6. The suit was objected on the grounds of maintainability, estopple and limitation by the present petitioner. Now, as far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the same is to be decided either on the basis of where cause of action accrues. The plaintiff can also institute the suit, where the defendant resides. In the present case, neither cause of action accrues in Shimla nor the defendant resides in Shimla. 7. Now, as far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the same is to be decided either on the basis of where cause of action accrues. The plaintiff can also institute the suit, where the defendant resides. In the present case, neither cause of action accrues in Shimla nor the defendant resides in Shimla. 7. In these circumstances, this Court finds the present case within the jurisdiction of Jubbal, District Shimla. So, the impugned order dated 7.12.2018 passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference. 8. Accordingly, the petition devoid of any merit deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties to appear before the learned Court below on 26.08.2019. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.