In a suit for compensation for wrong done, the court within whose local jurisdiction the damage was suffered or sustained has jurisdiction to try the suit, even if the wrongful act occurred outside its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT-The only question involved in the present revision is whether the preliminary issue raised at the request of the present applicant-defendant, the State, that the Akola Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the non-applicant-plaintiff, was correctly decided.

2. The look at the plaint shows that it is a claim made by the plaintiff upon the allegations that it is carrying on a business of manufacturing Poha from Dhan in Akola district. For that purpose they have to import raw materials. They had entered into an agreement with M/s Chule brothers of Gondia for purchase of Poha in November-December, 1964. The Collector, Akola, had given them licence to import the necessary Dhan. It is further grievance that their import for the purpose of manufacture of Poha so arranged was affected by an action taken by the defendant No.2 mala fide and without legal authority, who stopped its movement. Because of that, the plaintiff complains, as can be seen from further allegations, that their business in Akola was affected and they sufferred losses and that is the basis for claiming damages. Defendant No.2 is said to have acted on behalf of or under the authority of defendant No.1, present applicant. The plaintiff has given details in para 6 of the claim, which more or less show the amount of loss on account of withholding the raw material and keeping the factory idle. The loss in business complained of is stated to have occasion within the territorial jurisdiction of the Akola Court. The suit on that basis is filed in that Court.

3. Thus the plaintiff's cause as led in Akola Court is that they have sufferred damage or loss because of the illegal action of defendants 1 and 2 together, particularly of defendant No.2 acting for defendant No.1. The case, clearly is one based on the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of Akola Court. The trial Court has answered the issue of jurisdiction by holding that the cause of action for the purpose of damages would arise only on the proof of loss and the place where the loss is sufferred, i. e., the place of business which is affected would offer sufficient nexus for upholding the jurisdiction.

4 This order is questioned in the present revision. It is to be observed that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant appears to be that this is a suit which must be governed by section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The State being a party cannot be treated as residing within the limits of Akola Court and the only remaining relevant factor was the place where the wrong complained of was done to the person or business of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that only the Bhandara Court will have jurisdiction for stoppage alleged occured within its limits.

5. For the proposition that the State cannot be deemed to reside at each and every place, reliance is placed on Govindarajulu Naidu v. Secretary of State1 and Anath Bandhu Deb v. Dominion of India2.

6. In Madras case the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent along with the provisions of section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure were being considered in a suit brought for the recovery of goods or price of goods confiscated by Collector of customs. It was held that the word "resides" must be taken to refer to natural persons and not to legal entities such as limited companies or Government. In Calcutta decision the case was being considered under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the phrase "carrying on business" or "residing within jurisdiction" was pressed in to hold that territorial jurisdiction cannot be found against Union of India. The Court, after referring to the pleadings, came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and the Union of India cannot be treated to carryon business or reside within its jurisdiction.

7. In Union of India and another v. Sri Ladulal Jain3 the provisions of section 20, clauses (a) and (b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document