Inder Pal Juneja v. The Commercial Bank Employees Co-operative Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd

1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 07.5.2014 by which the trial court has returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing the suit in the competent court at Rohtak.

2. The subject suit is a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution is alleged to be caused by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/plaintiff on account of filing of a false 2014:DHC:4162 criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Rohtak, and which was dismissed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Challenge by the respondent/defendant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to the order dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC was also dismissed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 13.10.2010.

3. In view of the abovestated factual position, a reading of the plaint shows that the cause of action with respect to malicious prosecution has arisen at Rohtak and not at Delhi.

4. The courts at Delhi would only have territorial jurisdiction when whole or part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, but in the present case since the suit is for malicious prosecution on account of respondent/defendant having filed a false complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC and which was filed/prosecuted at Rohtak and thereafter in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, hence, no part of cause of action can be said to have accrued at Delhi so far as the subject suit for malicious prosecution is concerned.

5. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and the petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 26, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. KA