ORDER
B.N. Nigam, J.C.
1. Rampal filed Civil Suit No. 9 of 1948 against Firm Girdharilal Gyan Chand of Muzaffarnagar in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Beawar, claiming a decree for Rs. 2597-1-0 with interest pendente lite and future. The learned Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He, accordingly, directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who repelled his contention and agreed with the learned Subordinate Judge. Now the plaintiff has come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant urges that as soon as the contract was broken, the excess sum that had been received by the defendant became payable to the plaintiff and that in respect of that amount the relationship between the parties was that of a creditor and debtor. The learned counsel also urges that the debtor must find the creditor and the creditor is entitled to sue the debtor at his own place of business. So far as the principle enunciated by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, there is no disagreement and the debtor must find his creditor.
But I do not see that, in the circumstances of the case, the relationship between the parties was that of a debtor and a creditor. The plaintiff was suing on the basis of a contract and the breach thereof. The question that has to be considered is whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract in respect of 500 maunds of jaggery powder or whether the breach of contract was committed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on the determination of the question of bread of contract and not on the relationship of debtor and creditor.
3. No other point has been pressed before me. I, therefore, see no force in this revision and dismiss it with costs.