AIR 2006 KERALA 243 ::2006 (4) All LJ EE 527 ::2006 (4) ALJ 527 ::2006 (5) AKAR (NOC) 613 (KER) ::2006 (5) AIR Kar R 613 ::2006 A I H C (NOC) 328 (KER) ::2007 (4) RecCivR 501 ::(2006) 3 ICC 337 ::2006 (2) KerLT 293 ::2006 (1) Ker LJ 862 ::(2006) 42 AllIndCas 733 (KER) ::(2006) ILR(ker) 2 KER 257

Kerala High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. Basant , J

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.20(a)— Territorial jurisdiction - Suit for recovery based on pronote - Plaintiff and defendant were both employed in foreign country - Both of them had their place of permanent residence in India - Promissory note was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff in foreign country - At time when he executed promissory note and after 3 years when suit was filed defendant did actually and voluntarily resided in foreign country and not at the place where he had his permanent dwelling house in India - No place of payment was stipulated in the promissory note - Court in India did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain suit in absence of Expl. I to S. 20 which has been deleted by Amendment Act of 1976. The plaintiff and the defendant were both employed in foreign country, Saudi Arabia. Both of them had their place of permanent residence in India. A promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff at Saudi Arabia. The amount due under the promissory note had not been paid. The defendant who at the time when he executed promissory note and after 3 years when the suit was filed did actually and voluntarily reside in Saudi Arabia and not at the place where he had his permanent dwelling house in India. No place of payment was stipulated in the promissory note. Prior to the 1976 amendment Explanation I, was avai....