Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This revision petition has been filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 against the order of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class Ludhiana, dated Oct. 7, 1976.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Inder Partap Singh, defendant No. 4 was selected for training for the Post of Graduate Engineer by Hindusthan Steep Ltd., defendant No. 1. Under the term and conditions of service, defendant No. 4 had to execute a bond to serve defendant No. 1 and also to give a surety bond. The plaintiff, at the request of defendant No. 4, it is alleged, agreed to stand surety for him, to the effect that defendant No. 4 would not leave the service except on the ground of ill health and in case he did so, the plaintiff would be liable to pay Rs. 10,000 to defendant No. 1. Consequently, a bond was executed by the plaintiff to that effect and was sent to Bhilai, to defendant No. 1, and the same was accepted there. It is alleged that defendant No. 1, after the receipt of the bond, changed its terms and added a clause that in case of dispute between the parties, the civil Courts of Durg District will have jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 4 had to give up service on account of ill health and consequently the plaintiff was not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000. It is then stated that defendant No. 1 to 3 intended to realise the amount of bond illegally. He, therefore, instituted a suit at Ludhiana by which he sought declaration that the surety bond dated Aug. 3, 1971 had become void owing to frustration and material alterations made by defendant No. 1. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 inter alia on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned trial Court held that the Ludhiana Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 having felt aggrieved from the order of the trial Court, have come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The only question that arises for determination is whether the civil Court at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the suit? It is contended by Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioners that the bond was furnished by the plaintiff at Bhilai after getting the same attested from the Magistrate at Ludhiana, and it was accepted there Consequently, the agreement would be deemed to have taken place at Bhilai. On the other hand, Mr. Ujagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has urged that the agreement between defendant No. 4 and the plaintiff for furnishing bond, took place at Ludhiana and the bond was attested at Ludhiana. Therefore, a part of the cause of action arose to the plaintiff at Ludhiana. He further argues that a notice by defendant No. 1 to pay the amount of the bond was served upon the plaintiff at Ludhiana. He, therefore, submits that the Court at Ludhiana 4 had the jurisdiction to try the suit.;