039-NLR-NLR-V-65-E.-P.-SENEVIRATNE-Appellant-and-THAHA-Respondent.pdf
184
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—JSmmiiratite^v. TAafia
Present. Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.
P. SENE VTRATNE, Appellant, and THAHA, RespondentS. C. 368—D. C. Colombo, 21607/SJurisdiction—Cheque—Dishonour—Court where action should be instituted.
The defendant, who was residing at Panadura, drew a cheque in favour ofthe plaintiff payable at the Panadura Office of the Bank of Ceylon. Whenthe cheque was dishonoured at Panadura, the plaintiff instituted the presentaction in the District Court of Colombo for the recovery of the amount of thecheque.
Held, that the cause of action arose in Panadura and the District Court ofColombo had therefore no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
H. W. Jayeiua'rdene, Q.C., with. B. J. Fernando, for Defendant-Appellant.
K.Shinya. with Nimal Senanayake, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
March 15, 1961. Basnayaee, C.J.—
The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant for therecovery of a sum. of Rs. 7,500. He pleaded that the defendant atColombo within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Colombo byhis cheque No. B 37658S dated 29th December, 1954, directed the Bankof Ceylon, Panadura Office, to pay to the plaintiff or bearer the sumof Rs. 7.500 for valuable consideration and the plaintiff became thelawful holder thereof in due course; that tire plaintiff presented thesaid cheque for payment at the office of the said bank but the samewas returned to the plaintiff with the endorsement of “ stale cheque ” ;that due notice of dishonour thereof was given to the defendant; andthat on the said cheque there is now justly and truly due and owingfrom the defendant to the plaintiff' a sum of Rs. 7,500 which sum orany part thereof the defendant has failed and neglected to pay to theplaintiff though thereto often demanded.
Several defences were raised by the defendant in his answer but it isnot necessary to deal with all of them except the one which refers to■the jurisdiction of the court to try the action. The cheque is one drawnat Panadura on the Bank of Ceylon at Panadura. The learned DistrictJudge has held that the District Court of Colombo has jurisdiction tohear the case. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the causeof action arose within the jurisdiction of tha District Court of Panaduraas the cheque was dishonoured at the Panadura Office of the Bank of
w SRI SKANPA RAJAH, J.—Ceylon Transport Board v. Samastha Lanka 18 &
Motor Sevaka Samithiya
Ceylon. It is common ground that the defendant resides at Panadurawithin the jurisdiction of the District Court of Panadura and that thecheque was dishonoured at Panadura within the jurisdiction of thatCourt. The cause of action therefore arose in Panadura and the DistrictCourt of Colombo has therefore no jurisdiction to try the action.
We therefore set aside the judgment of the learned District Judgeand dismiss the plaintiff’s action with costs in both courts.
Sansout, J.—I agree.
Judgment set aside.
■— – ■