A.B. Rohatgi, J.
(1) The plaintiff M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad brought & suit for the recovery of Rs 14,000.00 against two defendants, (i) M/. Eastern Commercial Corporation, Patiala (the Corporation) & (ii) Shyam Lal Maheshwari. The plaintiff's case was that the Corporation bad purchased 400 electric wooden poles of the value of Rs. 17,000.00 from Maheshwari.
(2) The Corporation had issued two cheques of Rs. 12,750.00 and Rs. 4,250.00 dated 11.1.1961 and 24.1.l961 respectively in favor of Maheshwari. The said cheques were dishonoured when presented to the bank. Out of the amount of two cheques the Corporation paid a sum of Rs. 7,000.00 .A balance of Rs. 10,000.00 remained due to Maheshwari which the Corporation did not pay.
(3) On July 25, 1974 Maheshwari assigned the debt payble to him by the Corporation to the plaintiff M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad by means of a deed of assignment. Maheshwari also endorsed the two cheques in favor of M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad.
(4) M/S. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 on account of balance principal amount and Rs. 4,000/. on account of interest.
(5) The Corporation contested the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were raised : (1) Whether the courts at Delhi have Jurisdiction to try this suit? (2) Whether the suit is within time? (3) Whether defendant No. 1 had purchased goods of the value of Rs. 17.000.00 from defendant No. 2? (4) Whether defendant No. 2 assigned the debt as alleged in favor of the plaintiff? (5) To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to on account of principal and interest? (6) Relief.
(6) The Trial judge held all the issues in favor of the plaintiff. He decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 12,666/33. This included the amount of Rs. 10,000.00 on account of principal and Rs. 2,666/33 on account of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. From this decision the Corporation have brought this appeal against M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad.
(7) Mr. Madan Lakur on behalf of the appellant Corporation has argued only the question of jurisdiction raised in the first issue. He submits that the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as the Corporation carries on business at Patiala and the contract to supply goods in respect of which the two cheques were issued was also entered into at Patiala. The Trial Judge held that the deed of assignment was executed at Delhi and court in whose territorial jurisdiction an assignment is made has jurisdiction to try the suit. For this he relied on Dilbagh Rai v. Walu Ram & others, A.I.R. 1933, Lah 940.
(8) In order to succeed on this issue the appellant Corporation has to show that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was wrongly decided and this has resulted in failure of justice. A mere wrong decision of issue on territorial jurisdiction is not enough unless it results in failure of justice. (See : Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure). There is no plea of failure of justice by the appellant Corporation in this case. The grounds of appeal do not speak of any prejudice which may have been caused to the appellant by the trial of the suit at Delhi. A wrong finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction recorded by the Trial Court can be reversed by the appellate court only if it has resulted in failure of justice. Unless there is a plea and finding as to failure of justice the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be given much importance, even if wrongly decided, in view of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See : M/s. Cheelu Mal Hari Ram & others v. M/s. Mangtu Ram Devki Nandan & others. ).
(9) No other point has been taken in appeal before me.
(10) For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs.