Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Canara Bank, filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, for recovery of money against the respondent, Girija Prasad Gupta, arising out of a credit card (Cancard Visa) issued by the Bank. The Bank contended that the defendant had availed membership of the Cancard Scheme and was issued a card bearing No.4543-6302-00917003. The defendant used the card and failed to make payments despite demands. The Bank pleaded that the card was issued from Bangalore, the defendant agreed to the terms and conditions at Bangalore, and payments were to be made at Bangalore, thus part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore court. The trial court, by order dated 15.02.2010, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC holding that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and directed the Bank to present the plaint before the appropriate court. The Bank appealed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found that the Bank had specifically pleaded that the card was issued from Bangalore, the defendant agreed to the terms at Bangalore, and payments were to be made at Bangalore. The High Court held that these averments constitute part of the cause of action and the trial court erred in returning the plaint without giving the Bank an opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh, after affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - Order VII Rule 10, Order 43 Rule 1(a), Section 20 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of credit card dues. The trial court returned the plaint holding that no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The High Court held that the plaint averments that the card was issued from Bangalore, payments were to be made at Bangalore, and the defendant agreed to terms at Bangalore, constitute part of cause of action. The court must decide jurisdiction based on plaint averments, not on merits. The order returning plaint was set aside and the trial court was directed to decide the jurisdiction issue afresh after giving opportunity to lead evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10 CPC - The trial court returned the plaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court held that when the plaint discloses a cause of action, the court cannot return the plaint summarily; it must decide the issue after trial if necessary. The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, when the plaintiff-Bank had pleaded that part of the cause of action arose at Bangalore.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2010 passed in S.C.No.937/2009 by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh, after affording an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- cause of action
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC
- Section 20 CPC
- credit card agreement
- place of payment
- place of issuance of card
