Heard learned counsel Mr. Najmul Hoda appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Purnea in Title Suit No.96 of 2004 whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for returning the plaint, because of the fact that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has been rejected.

3. It appears that the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.96 of 2004 claiming damage of Rs.5 lacs on account of various facts alleged in the plaint including the fact stated at paragraph 12 that the defendant got published the defamatory language in different daily newspapers as well as magazine “The Light of Bihar, December 2003” and the prestige of the plaintiffs is damaged.

4. The defendant-petitioner appeared and filed the application praying for return of the plaint on the ground that the court at Purnea has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. By the impugned order, the court below has rejected the said application recording a finding that the plaintiffs can file the suit at Kishanganj or at Purnea both.

5. The learned counsel Mr. Najmul Hoda appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner submitted that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure nowhere speaks about the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit where the plaintiff resides but the court has wrongly held that because the plaintiff no.1 is a resident of Purnea, the plaintiffs can institute the suit at Purnea and also at Kishanganj where the defendant resides. According to the learned counsel, this finding of the court below is wrong.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that in fact there is no illegality in the impugned order and the court below has rightly passed the order because the defamatory publication was made in different newspapers, as such, the plaintiff no.1, who is Bishop of Catholic Church, Purnea, sustained irreparable loss because of damage to his prestige, therefore, in terms of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit can be filed at Purnea also.

7. Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure including illustrations reads as follows:—

19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.—Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Illustrations

(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

8. In view of the provision, the plaintiff can file the suit at two places; (i) in the place where wrong has been done to the person and; the (ii) where the defendant resides. So far the first place is concerned, in the present case, according to the plaintiffs as stated in paragraph 12, the wrong has been done to the plaintiffs at Purnea because the plaintiff no.1 is the Bishop of Catholic Church, Purnea, who is the direct representative of Pope of Rome. This question has been clarified in illustration (b) of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure as quoted above. In the illustration (b) A was residing in Delhi, who publishes in Calcutta Statements defamatory of B. B. may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi because defamatory publication was made in Calcutta. The suit can be instituted in Calcutta. In the present case, according to the statement made in par