Skip to content


S. Niranjan Singh Vs. Jagjit Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 648 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1955P& H128
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20
AppellantS. Niranjan Singh
RespondentJagjit Singh and anr.
Advocates: Mohan Singh, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredSoniram Jeetmall v. B. D. Tata and Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an..........that would be engrafting something on to section 20.'2. section 20, civil p. c. lays down the rules for determining the forum in which action should be brought and the common-law rule of england with regard to this matter does not apply in this country. that a debtor must seek a creditor for payment is no doubt true in this country too, but not for the purpose of determining the forum where the suit is to be instituted. the privy-council decision in -- 'soniram jeetmall v. b. d. tata and co. ltd.', air 1927 p. order 156 (b), does not deal with the application of this rule to section 26 civil p. o. it is, therefore, clear that the delhi courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case an the revision petition fails and must be dismissed there is no appearance on behalf of the.....
Judgment:

Khosla, J.

1. The point arising in this revision petition wasdiscussed at some length In -- 'Piyara Singh v.Bhagwan Das', AIR 1951 Punj 33(A). My brotherKapur J. was a member of the Bench which heardthat case and he observed--

'The technical rule of the debtor seeking the creditor is not applicable in India for the purpose of determining the local jurisdiction of the courts because that would be engrafting something on to Section 20.'

2. Section 20, Civil P. C. lays down the rules for determining the forum in which action should be brought and the common-law rule of England with regard to this matter does not apply in this country. That a debtor must seek a creditor for payment is no doubt true in this country too, but not for the purpose of determining the forum where the suit is to be Instituted. The Privy-Council decision in -- 'Soniram Jeetmall v. B. D. Tata and Co. Ltd.', AIR 1927 P. Order 156 (B), does not deal with the application of this rule to Section 26 Civil P. O. It is, therefore, clear that the Delhi Courts have no Jurisdiction to hear this case an the revision petition fails and must be dismissed There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents and there will be therefore no orders as to costs

Kapur, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //