By reason of the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the said Court relying or on the basis of Section 20 c of the Code of Civil Procedure and upon placing the legislative history of the said provision, opined Thus I agree with the learned companynsel for the revision petitioner that strictly the companyrt did number have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the date of the suit.
820 of 2005.
He, inter alia, raised an issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the said companyrt to entertain the suit.
The said transaction was carried out at Saudi Arabia.
By an Order dated 15.3.2005, the application of the appellant was dismissed by the Ld.
Admittedly, the parties were residing at Saudi Arabia at the relevant time.
Although both the parties were residing in Saudi Arabia, Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal for recovery of the said amount sometime in the year 2002.
Appellant filed a civil revision thereagainst before the High Court of Kerala which was marked as CRP No.
No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Attingal.
Arising out of SLP C No.
12398 OF 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Appellant executed a promissory numbere on 8.5.1999.
Respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the aforementioned amount in the Subordinate Court at Attingal.
Appellant is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.6,02,000/ Rupees Six Lacs Two Thousand Only from the respondent.
