(1) This revisional application raises a neat question of jurisdiction. Whether the Poona Court can entertain a pauper suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The relevant facts are these. Some time prior to 4th February 1962 the Defendant in Bombay entrusted certain diamonds of the value of Rs. 15,000/- to one Jairamdas, the brother of the Plaintiff for the purpose of sale on commission, but while Jairamdas was travelling from Bombay to Poona his pocked was picked. However, the Defendant filed a Criminal complaint against Jairamdas and the Plaintiff (both of whom carry on business as jewellers at Poona) in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate at Esplanade, Bombay, charging them with the offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof under Sections 403 and 406 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. This criminal complaint was filed by the Defendant on 14th February 1962 and after obtaining the process from the criminal court in that behalf, the Defendant effected service of the summons upon the Plaintiff and his brother at Poona. It appears that evidence of witnesses on behalf of the Complainant (Defendant) was led in the criminal court but on 27th November 1962 a compromise was arrived at whereunder, Jairam and the Plaintiff agreed to pay back Rs.15,000/- to the Defendant in certain instalments notwithstanding the fact that the diamonds had been stolen during Jairamdass journey from Bombay to Poona. As a result of the compromise the criminal complaint was dismissed and both the plaintiff as well as his brother were discharged. But while discharging them the criminal Court in its judgment observed as follows:

"There is no iota of evidence to connect accused No. 2 (Plaintiff) with this offence. In my opinion Accused No. 2 (Plaintiff) is wrongly prosecuted in this case."

Thereafter the plaintiff filed a pauper suit against the Defendant claiming Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution by presenting Miscellaneous Application No.206/63 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, on 15th April 1963. The pauper petition was in due course transferred to the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division of Poona. After notice to show cause was issued and served upon the Defendant, the Defendant raised several contentions at Ex. 10. Inter alia it was contended by the Defendant that the Poona Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. The Plaintiff urged that inasmuch as the process of the criminal Court had been served upon him at Poona on 26th October 1962, a part of the cause of action arose in Poona and therefore the Poona Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona at the instance of both the parties raised a preliminary point about the jurisdiction and after hearing the Advocates, held that since the summons in the criminal case had been served upon the Plaintiff in Poona, he had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and he, therefore, directed that the hearing of the proper petition be proceeded further. Against this order passed by the trial Court on 31st July 1963 the Defendant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2) On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Keshavdas strenuously urged before me that the plaintiff in his pauper petition claimed jurisdiction in the Poona Court solely on the ground that the summons in the criminal case was served upon him in Poona and he, therefore, contended that that fact by itself could not give jurisdiction to the Poona Court in view of Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was applicable to the facts of the case. On the other hand Mr. Mhamane, on behalf of the plaintiff, brought to my notice that the plaintiff in the body of his plaint had claimed special damages amounting to Rs. 1500/- comprising of 3 items: (I) Rs. 700/- being fees paid to Shri T.C. Motwani, Advocate (ii) Rs. 300/-