AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manohar Lall, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dated 14th May 1935, by which he dismissed the plaintiff''s suit which was instituted to set aside a decree of the Calcutta High Court on the Original Side obtained by the respondent on 28th February 1930, on the foot of two promissory notes said to have been executed by the plaintiff at Monghyr on 29th September 1924, and 23rd December 1924, for the sums of Rs. 500 and Rs. 5000, respectively.
The decree of the Calcutta High Court was transferred for execution to Monghyr when the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 23 rd May 1933. The questions which arose to be decided were whether the Court at Monghyr had jurisdiction to try the present suit; whether the decree of the Calcutta High Court was fraudulent, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
The only question which is seriously argued before us by Dr. Mitter is that upon the materials on the record in this case he will be able to show that the decree of the Calcutta High Court was without jurisdiction because the handnotes in suit, if at all executed, were executed at Monghyr and the payment which was promised to be made in the handnotes was promised to be made at Howrah which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. Now the difficulty in the way of this argument is that this was a matfer which was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to decide whether that Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit after granting leave under Clause 12 of the Charter. A specific defence was taken by the present plaintiff in his written statement, in paras. 1 and 2 printed at p. 13; but when the case came on for trial he absented himself.
Upon these facts it is clear to our mind that the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to decide whether they had jurisdiction to entertain the suit which has resulted in a decree which is complained of. We see no merits in this appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. In the special circumstances of the case, the hearing fee will be fixed at two gold mohurs.
Chatterji, J.
I agree.