- (1.) The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 20.11.01 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court) in Civil Suit No. 11/96, whereby the trial court has returned the plaint of the appellants for being presented before the competent court.
(2.) It appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and rendition of the accounts against the respondents-defendants, alleging interalia that the respondent No. 1 was the agent of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were engaged in business of financing the vehicles. The appellant-plaintiff had obtained a loan from the respondents for the vehicle-Bus after executing the agreement. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the respondents-defendants were not giving the correct accounts of the payments of instalments made by the appellant and were threatening the appellant to take forcible possession of the vehicle in question and, therefore, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement denying the allegations levelled by the appellant and further contending interalia that as per the agreement, only the court at Bombay and Indore had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It appears that the trial court after framing the issues, from the pleadings of the parties, decided the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and ordered to return the plaint for being presented before the court having jurisdiction, by the impugned order.
(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. V.K. Tamoliya, for the appellant that the agreement in question was executed in Jaipur, the delivery of the vehicle was taken in Jaipur and the registration of the vehicle in question was also done in Jaipur and therefore, part of cause of action had arisen at the court at Jaipur only.;