- (1.) R. Dayal, J. This First Appeal is directed against the order dated 12. 12. 1983 passed by the learned IV Addl. District Judge Budaun in Suit No. 206 of 1986 directing return of the plaint to the plaintiffs-appellants for presentation before the proper court, holding that the court at Budaun did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) SUIT No. 206 of 1986 was brought by the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 5,90,000 with interest on the allegations that the appellants were in business of hire-purchase, besides lending money and that respondent No. 2 came to Ujhani and asked them for a loan of Rs. 5,50,000 and the letter agreed to advance the loan to respondents 1 and 2 on the assurance of respondent No. 2 that the amount would be repaid with interest at the rate of 2% per month. The appellants pleaded that the court at Budaun had the jurisdiction since the loan had been advanced at Ujhani in district Budaun. Defendants 1 and 2 denied that the court at Budaun had the jurisdic tion. It was pleaded in para 58 of the written statement that no transaction took place at Ujhani/budaun and, therefore, the court at Budaun did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit was not main tainable since the plaintiff-Company was not having money lending licence to carry on the business of money-lending. The learned trial court framed issue No. 5 as under : "5. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged in para 58 of W. S. ?"
(3.) THE appellants and respondents 1 and 2 led evidence on this issue and after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties the trial court held that the court at Budaun does not have the juris diction to try the suit since admittedly the plaintiffs were carrying on business of money lending and, therefore, under Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the suit could be instituted only in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the debtor resides or carries on business or works for gain and not in any other court. Notices were served on the respondents but none appeared to contest the appeal. We have heard Sri Vikram Nath, Brief-holder of Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants.;