KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) IN this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of the judgment dated January 11, 1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum -Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which the order dated March 30, 1983 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City, Jodhpur regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit filed by late Manak Lal, whose legal representatives respondents Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 are, was set aside.
(2.) MANAK Lal had filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City, Jodhpur against five defendants including the two petitioners and non -petitioner No. 4. The plaint averments were that the plaintiff had obtained a draft from Bank of Baroda, Sojatigate Branch, Jodhpur for Rs. 2500/ - in the name of Shah Shantilal Roopchand Cloth Merchant and Commission Agent, 18/20 Javeri Bazar, Teejamata, Bombay -2 in the name of defendant No. 4 Bank of Baroda, Sir P.M. Road, Branch Bombay. Defendant No. 3, Shah Shantilal Roopchand inquired of defendant No. 4 and was informed that the draft had been encashed through defendant No. 1. The Greater Bombay Co -operative Bank, Ltd. Nariyalwala Nagar, Dadar, Bombay -14, The plaintiff sought the explanation from defendant No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) but could not get any satisfactory reply. Because of this, he had to pay Rs. 2500/ - to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff demanded the draft amount from defendant No. 2, Bank of Baroda, Sojatigate, Branch, Jodhpur but could not get it. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit. Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 did not file the written statement and were proceeded exparte. Defendant No. 1 (present petitioner No. 1) filed an application under Section 20 CPC (here in after to be referred as 'the Code') on February 25, 1982 and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in Jodhpur Court on the ground that defendant Nos. 1 and 5 were not residents of Jodhpur and cause of action neither wholly nor in part arose at Jodhpur. The learned Munsif after hearing the parties allowed the application and held that the Court at Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the legal representatives of plaintiff Manaklal (since dead) preferred appeal. The learned Civil Judge, as stated earlier, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif. Dissatisfied by the appellate Corut's Judgment the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) MR . S.B. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the payment of the money was to be made to a person residing at Bombay through the Bank situated at Bombay and therefore, issuing of the draft by the Bank at Jodhpur on payment of money by the plaintiff did not vest jurisdiction to Jodhpur Court to entertain the suit. According to Mr. Bhandari Section 20 CPC clearly provides that suits can be instituted where defendant, resides or cause of action arises and therefore, the order of the learned Munsif based on sound reasonings should not have been interfered with by the appellate Court.;