1. On 11th January 1932 the defendant executed a promissory note (Ex P-1) in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of it the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Khamgaon, to recover from the defendant Rs. 1,100 due on it. The plaintiff alleged that he was a resident of Khamgaon having also his place of business there and that the note itself was executed at Khamgaon under an express agreement to pay the amount at Khamgaon. The defendant questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit on the allegation that the promissory note in suit was executed by him at Nimgaon which is within the jurisdiction of the Malkapur Court, that he resided at Nimgaon and that there was an express agreement to pay the amount at Nimgaon.
2. The lower Court held that the promissory note in suit was executed at Nimgaon which was the place where the defendant resided and that there was no express agreement to pay the debt either at Khamgaon or at Nimgaon. Nevertheless applying the general principle that a debtor must find out his creditor and make the payment due to him at the latter's place of residence the lower Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. It is against this order that the defendant has come up to this Court in revision. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-applicant that the ordinary principle, laid down in 1930 Nag. 207(1), that in the absence of any specific agreement as to the place where the payment of a debt is to be made, it is the duty of the debtor to make the payment where the creditor residas, or where his place of business is, is not applicable to negotiable instruments. This contention is sound. Under Section 70 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) a promissory note or bill of exchange not made payable as mentioned in Ss. 68 and 69, must be presented for payment at the place of business (if any) or at the usual residences of the maker, drawee or acceptor thereof, as the case may be.
4. When the legislature itself has declared that payment due under a promissory note, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, is ordinarily to be made at the usual place of business of the maker or at his residence, it is clear that on the findings given by the lower Court the plaintiff could not file the present suit to recover the amount due under the promissory note at any place other than the one where the defendant admittedly resides, that is Nimgaon, which is in the jurisdiction of the Malkapur Court. I therefore reverse the finding of the lower Court that it has jurisdiction to try the suit and order it to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. There will be no order for costs either in this Court or in the lower Court.
5. Order accordingly.