Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir @ Satyabir vs Anil Kumar on 5 December, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
RSA-923-2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 05, 2014.
Satbir @ Satyavir
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
Anil Kumar
........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the appellant (s).
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This is regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the suit of respondent-plaintiff Anil Kumar was decreed for recovery of `75,000 with interest and the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant was dismissed.
2. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff was based on two pronotes and receipts executed by appellant-defendant. First pronote was dated 03.01.2001 for a sum of `25,000 and the second dated 20.04.2001 for a sum of `50,000.
3. Appellant-defendant contested the claim of respondent-plaintiff on the ground that respondent-plaintiff had taken undue benefit of faith and innocence of appellant-defendant by fabricating these documents. The pronote and receipt of `25,000 was admitted, but it was alleged that the amount SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.05 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA-923-2011 -2- of loan of `25,000 was returned and the respondent-plaintiff had assured that he will torn the pronote and receipt. Again a sum of `50,000 was taken as loan by appellant-defendant on 25.04.2001 and he executed the pronote and receipt to this effect. The total deal was of `5,00,000 as the appellant- defendant wanted to install a mineral water plant.
4. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-
(1) Whether the defendant executed the pronote on 3.1.2001 by borrowing Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to pay interest @ Rs.2% per month and he further borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 20.4.2001 and further agreed to return the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month by executing pronote and receipts ?OPP (2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.1,25,400/- ?OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ?OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD (5) Whether the suit is false and frivolous ?OPD (6) Whether the pronote and receipts are result of fraud as alleged in the written statement ?OPD (7) Relief.
5. As the execution of pronotes and receipts and advancing of loan amount was proved, both the Courts below decreed the suit and allowed the claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of `75,000 with interest.
6. Challenging the judgment and decree of both the Courts below on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the matter learned counsel for SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.05 17:02 appellant has argued that pronote dated 20.04.2001 for loan of `50,000 was I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA-923-2011 -3- executed at Charkhi Dadri, while earlier pronote dated 03.01.2001 was executed at village Goraya, District Jhajjar and the Court at Charkhi Dadri had no jurisdiction for the loan transaction of 03.01.2001. Though the appellant had taken the objection to the effect that suit is not maintainable, both the Courts below have neither dealt with this fact nor decided the issue of jurisdiction.
7. On giving a careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I find no reason to accept the same. Section 21 Civil Procedure Code relates to objection as to place of suing and read as follows:-
"S.21. Objections to jurisdiction.--[(1)] No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."
8. The expression 'place of suing' simply means the venue for trial and has no reference to the competence of Court. Section 21 CPC requires that objection to territorial jurisdiction must be taken in the original court at the earliest opportunity and before settlement of issues. Even if this is done and the objection is wrongly disallowed, the appellate or revisional court can not entertain the objection unless there has been consequent failure of justice. Where objections with regard to the place of suing is not taken in the written statement, or before the settlement of issues and no issue is framed thereon, mere raising of such an issue at the bar does not qualify as SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.05 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA-923-2011 -4- an objection to the place of suing within the meaning of S.21(1).
9. In this case, the appellant-defendant had avoided to raise a specific plea regarding the jurisdiction of court at Charkhi Dadri at the initial stage and it operates as waiver of objection to jurisdiction of Courts which tried and decided the suit. The appellant stood debarred from raising this plea for the first time in this regular second appeal.
10. No substantial question of law requiring determination arises in this appeal, which has no merits. Dismissed.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) December 05, 2014. JUDGE Sachin M. SACHIN MEHTA 2015.01.05 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh