1974 (7) TMI 126 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of Akola Court to try the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 19 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
3. Interpretation of "wrong done" and "cause of action" under CPC.
4. Relevance of precedents in determining jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Akola Court to Try the Suit:
The primary issue was whether the Akola Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff, who claimed damages due to the illegal actions of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that their business in Akola was adversely affected by the defendants' actions, resulting in losses. The trial court held that the cause of action for damages arose at the place where the loss was suffered, i.e., Akola, thus affirming the jurisdiction of Akola Court.

2. Applicability of Section 19 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
The defendant argued that the suit should be governed by Section 19 of the CPC, which deals with compensation for wrongs done to a person or movable property. They contended that the State could not be considered as residing within the limits of Akola Court, and only the Bhandara Court would have jurisdiction since the alleged wrongful act occurred within its limits. The court examined the provisions of Sections 19 and 20, noting that Section 19 offers a choice of forum if the wrong was done within the local limits of one court while the defendant resides or carries on business within another court's jurisdiction.

3. Interpretation of "Wrong Done" and "Cause of Action" Under CPC:
The court emphasized that the phrase "wrong done" in Section 19 should be understood in its broadest sense, encompassing both the initial wrongful act and its resultant effects. The court highlighted that compensation claims inherently involve proving loss or damage, which forms part of the cause of action. Therefore, the place where the loss was suffered (Akola) provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under Section 19.

4. Relevance of Precedents in Determining Jurisdiction:
The court referred to various precedents to support its interpretation of jurisdictional rules:
- Govindarajulu Naidu v. Secy. of State AIR 1927 Mad 689 and Anath Bandhu Deb v. Dominion of India, AIR 1955 Cal 626: These cases clarified that the State or Union of India could not be deemed to reside or carry on business within the jurisdiction of a particular court unless specific conditions were met.
- Union of India v. Ladulal Jain, [1964] 3 SCR 624: It was held that the Government could carry on business, and thus, suits could be filed within the jurisdiction where the Government's business activities were conducted.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Ram Lal, (1966) IILLJ 365 All: The court observed that the presence of a subordinate office did not automatically confer jurisdiction unless part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction.
- Gokaldas Melaram v. Baldevdas AIR 1961 Mys 188 and T. R. S. Mani v. I.R.P. (Radio) Private Ltd., Calcutta AIR 1963 Mad 30: These cases reinforced the principle that jurisdiction could be based on where the cause of action, including its effects, arose.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim for damages was based on the loss suffered within the jurisdiction of Akola Court due to the defendants' wrongful actions. The provisions of Section 19 of the CPC were broad enough to encompass the place where the resultant damage occurred, thereby affirming the jurisdiction of Akola Court. The revision petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the trial court's decision.

Final Judgment:
The revision petition was dismissed, and the Akola Court was deemed to have proper jurisdiction to try the suit based on the cause of action arising within its territorial limits.

← Previous Next →