1. The moot question, raised in this revision, is whether a suit can be instituted against a corporation in a court, within whose local jurisdiction a subordinate or branch office of the corporation is located irrespective of the fact as to whether the 'cause of action' part thereof, had or had not arisen within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court?

2. The question, posed above, has arisen in the backdrop of the facts as may be briefly put as under:

3. The opposite-party herein instituted Money Suit No.72/2005 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to receive from the defendants a sum of Rs. 21,37,000 with interest accruing thereon, the principal defendants, in the suit, being a company, which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office, at Kolkata, and having a branch office at Guwahati. In terms of the declaration, so sought for, the plaintiff also sought for a decree for recovery of the said amount, the suit of the plaintiff being, in substance, that he had worked for the defendant company for over 33 years, his postings being at different places in Assam and his last posting being at Gandrapara Tea Garden, West Bengal, and that the defendants, having utilized his services, had not paid his dues and he was, therefore, entitled to receive his dues and also to be compensated for the loss, which had incurred as a result of non-payment of his dues.

5. The defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit and filed a petition, under order VII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC'), seeking a direction to be passed returning the plaint of the plaintiff for the purpose of institution of the suit in a court, which had jurisdiction to try the suit, the petition having been filed on the ground that the pleadings, as contained in the plaint, had not disclosed that the learned trial court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In short, it was on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court, at Guwahati, that the said application was filed by the defendants seeking return of the plaint.

6. By order, dated 5.8.2008, as the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kamrup, has rejected the defendants' prayer to return the plaint, the defendants-petitioners, feeling aggrieved, are, now, before this court with the present revision.

7. I have heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, and Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party.

8. While considering the present revision, it may be pointed out, at the very outset, that it is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 is a company, registered under the Companies Act, with its registered office at Kolkata. However, while the plaintiff-opposite party asserts that the defendant No.1 has a branch office at Guwahati, the defendants-petitioners have disputed this assertion. Such a disputed question of fact does not fall within the province of the present revision.

9. This court, therefore, while deciding this revision, has to go by the assumption that a branch office of the defendant No.1 does exist at Guwahati. In fact, at the stage of consideration of the return of the plaint under order 7, rule 10, what is to be looked into is the plaint and the averments made therein. It is necessary to read the plaint in a meaningful manner to find out the real intention behind the suit. The nature of the suit and its purpose have to be determined by reading the plaint as a whole. The inclusion or absence of a prayer is not decisive of the true nature of the suit, nor is the order in which the prayers are arrayed in the plaint. The substance or object of the suit has to be gathered from the averments made in the plaint and on which the reliefs are asked and the prayers are based. It must be borne in mind that the function of a pleading is only to state material

Click Here to Read the rest of this document