Khosla, J.:— The point arising in this revision petition was discussed at some length in — ‘Piyara Singh… v. Bhagwan Das….’, AIR 1951 Punj 33 (A). My brother Kapur J. was a member of the Bench which heard that case and he observed—
“The technical rule of the debtor seeking the creditor is not applicable in India for the purpose of determining the local jurisdiction of the courts because that would be engrafting something on to S. 20.”.
2. Section 20 of the CPC lays down the rules for determining the forum in which action should be brought and the common-law rule of England with regard to this matter does not apply in this country.
3. That a debtor must seek a creditor for payment is no doubt true in this country too, but not for the purpose of determining the forum where the suit is to be instituted. The Privy Council decision in — ‘Soniram Jeetmall v. R.D Tata and Co. Ltd.’, AIR 1927 P.C 156 (B), does not deal with the application of this rule to Section 20 of the CPC. It is, therefore, clear that the Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case and the revision petition fails and must be dismissed. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents and there will be therefore no orders as to costs.
Kapur, J.:— I agree.
V.S.B
4. Revision, dismissed.