B.N. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This rule is directed against an order passed by the Third Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, deciding an issue as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court against the defendant
(2.) The defendant, Jagdish Chandra Sikdar and his sister Nanibala Kundu used to carry on business in partnership at Cuttack, under the name and style of Messrs. Graduate Friends. Jagdish Chandra's daughter was married to the plaintiffs son. Dispute arose between the parties above named, inter alia, over certain sums of money payable to the plaintiff out of the partnership business. The disputes were referred to arbitration and under the Award the plaintiff became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of principal and interest.
(3.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant Jagdish Chandra Sikdar executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 2300/- in favour of the plaintiff, on October 1, 1936. The said promissory note, the plaintiff alleged, was executed in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note and thereupon the plaintiff, Santimoyee Devi, instituted a suit in the City Civil Court against him claiming a sum of Rs. 3012-5-9, inclusive of principal and interest due on the promissory note. The defendant contested the suit and his defence, inter alia, was:- (a) the adjustment between the parties was made at the residence of Sri L. K. Das Gupta, Advocate, at Cuttack. (b) The writing in question, alleged to be a promissory note, was also executed at the house of the said L. K. Das Gupta at Cuttack and not in Calcutta, as untruly alleged. (c) the defendant resides and carries on business at Cuttack and as such no part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta or within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. On the pleadings there was a preliminary issue raised, namely:- "Has the court jurisdiction to try this suit?";