Question: What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud? [Bihar C.J. 1980] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud?] Answer Sub-section (c) of… Read More »

Question: What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud? [Bihar C.J. 1980] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud?] Answer Sub-section (c) of Section 20, C.P.C. provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The question remains what will...

Question: What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud? [Bihar C.J. 1980]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What is the place of suing when a decree is sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud?]

Answer

Sub-section (c) of Section 20, C.P.C. provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The question remains what will be the cause of action for a suit to set aside a decree alleged to be obtained by fraud. It will be all the facts and circumstances which go on to prove or establish the commission of the fraud alleged will form the cause of action. Therefore, the place of suing will be any place where such cause of action arose or in part arises.

In the well-established authority on this point of law is Dukan Nand Lal Krishnan Chander v. Abdul Hafiz, AIR 1960 J & K 76, where it was held that where a part of the fraud is committed within the jurisdiction of a Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

There is a difference of opinion among some High Courts regarding this point (Sampat v. Kaluram, AIR 1940 P 444), however, the majority of the High Courts have recognized this same principle. (Natarajan v. Saraswathy Ammal, AIR 1958 Mad 516) (Prabha Sharma v. Judge Family Court (No. 1), Jaipur & Another, Rajasthan High Court, II (2001) DMC 702).


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
  2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
  3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
  4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
  5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
  6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
  7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of
  8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
  9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
  10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Updated On 2022-01-21T06:41:07+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story