The court emphasized the importance of the cause of action and the communication of proceedings affecting the plaintiff's rights in determining territorial jurisdiction.

1. This is a civil revision petition by the defendant. The trial court on the averments in the plaint considered the question of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It held that it has no jurisdiction to try the case. This was done on the basis that no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court.

2. The aggrieved plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional Sub Judge, Cochin. The Additional Sub judge took a different view. He also examined the averments in the plaint. Valued the submissions made by the defendant and the plaintiff and found that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. He held that the Munsiff court is bound to try the suit. The defendant is aggrieved. He files this revision.

3. The suit is for a permanent injunction to rest rain the defendant and its officers including its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director from taking any proceedings or holding any enquiry against the plaintiff pursuant to a memorandum No. VO/6078 dated 4-6-1980. The main contention, raised by the plaintiff is that the disciplinary authority as far as the plaintiff is concerned, is the President of India and not the defendant. I am not now concerned with the merits of the case. The only point that requires consideration is whether on the averments in the plaint, the alleged cause of action as a whole or any part of it has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit has been filed.

4. The complaint of the plaintiff is that disciplinary proceeding has been initiated by a person who has no competency to do it in regard to his services at Cochin. Obviously, the area of operation of bis service as per the averments in the plaint is at Cochin. This is a fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to merit a judgment in his favour. It is also disputed before me. Further the counsel for the respondent submits that since the ultimate result of disciplinary action, perhaps will be the termination of the services of the plaintiff, at Cochin, at least part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit has been filed. The appellate court also has taken the view that since the plaintiff is working at Cochin under the respondent (Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.) that has to be taken as one of the circumstances to hold that at least part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Cochin Court. S.20 of the Civil Procedure Code runs thus:

"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

(b) 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 not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

This Section postulates the Rule as to the 'place of suing' in cases of personal actions. It is so since the Section begins with a Verbum Sapienti that the provisions in the section are to be applied to the provisions of S.15 to 19 C. P. C.

5. The prime devoir of the Section is to secure that justice might be brought as near as possible to every citizen. The broad basis of the Code is to categorise actions into three classes: (i) those relate to immovable property; (ii) those which relate to the person or moveable property and (iii) actions partly relating to immovable property and partly personal. Clauses one and three are the subject-matte