Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Badrinarayan - Appellant
Versus
Excise Commissioner, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-11-61
JURISDICTION - SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT - SECTION 20, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - GOVERNMENT NOT CARRYING ON BUSINESS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF COURT - SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, an Abkari contractor, filed a suit against government officials and the Minister for Revenue and Excise, challenging the imposition of a penalty for alleged tapping of toddy and sendhi trees without paying excise duty. The suit was filed in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the assumption that the defendants resided within its territorial limits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable in the City Civil Court as the Government could not be said to be residing or carrying on business within its jurisdiction. The court found that the words "actually and voluntarily resides" in section 20, Civil Procedure Code, refer to natural persons and not to legal entities like the Government.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff could maintain the suit in the City Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the plain and unmistakable language of section 20, Civil Procedure Code, which contemplates people dwelling within the territorial limits of a court and persons indulging in commercial activities within that area. The court held that the Government, in obtaining Abkari revenue or collecting revenues from other sources, acts in its sovereign capacity and not as a commercial body. Therefore, the concept of carrying on business cannot be imported into activities of this description.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 148 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Order of the fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff was an Abkari contractor in 1360-F. for the villages of Vemulgunta and Lachamapur Khurd in the district of Nalgonda. A penalty of rs. 9,767-8-0 was imposed on him by the Excise Superintendent for the alleged tapping of 145 toddy and 500 sendhi trees without paying the excise-duty. He carried an appeal to the Collector, the appellate authority under the rules, against this levy and a further appeal to the Excise Commissioner unsuccessfully. He then sought to have this order revised by the Minister for Revenue and Excise. As this was also rejected, the appellant brought the aforesaid suit against the officials concerned and the Minister impugning the levy of penalty as being ultra vires, illegal and void.
( 2 ) VARIOUS defences were raised tp the suit but the one material for the purposes of the present enquiry is that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the contract was entered into and executed at Nalgonda and the order impeached was made at Nalgonda. The relevant issue of the issues framed for trial is : " Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as pleaded in paragraph (7) of the written statement ?" the Fourth Additional Judge took up this question as the preliminary issue and decided it against the plaintiff. It is that order of the trial Court that is now under appeal.
( 3 ) THE short question for decision in the appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant could maintain the suit in the City Civil Court. The plaint proceeded on the assumption that the defendants resided within the territorial limits of the City civil Court, having their offices therein. The material provision of law is section ao, Civil Procedure Code. It recites :"subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain ; or (4) any of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do rot reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution ; or (e) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I.-Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and aho a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of acticn arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. Explanation II.-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its role or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place whf re it has aho a sutcrdinatc office at such place. "
( 4 ) WE may premise the discussion with the remark that the concerned officials and the Minister were impleaded as defendants as representing the Government. So, the principal question for determination is whether the State Government could be said to be residing or carrying on business within the ambit of section ,20, civil Procedure Code, within the city jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The first point to be decided is whether the Government could be said to be actually and voluntarily residing within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, hyderabad. In the decision of this question, we cannot miss the significance of the expression " actually and voluntarily resides ". These words, in our opinion, clearly refer to a natural person and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
