Can the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the consequence ensued from the wrong done to movables beyond its territorial jurisdiction entertain a suit for compensation for the wrong done is the question for a decision in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Appellant purchased 1.278mt of teak wood from Peechi depot of the Forest Department in the auction held on 20.10.1991 for his house construction and according to him, after complying with the legal formalities he was transporting the timber in a lorry to the site of house construction at Maradu in Kanayannur Taluk on 26.4.1992. It was intercepted by respondent No.2 at Karukutty Sales Tax Check Post alleging that appellant had no valid documents. Respondent No.2 refused permission to the appellant to proceed further with the timber to its destination. Appellant was allowed to proceed only on the next day on his paying Rs.9,454/-. On 28.1992 the Sales Tax Officer at Ernakulam ordered refund of the said amount. Alleging that the said mala-fide act of respondent No.2 caused loss to him including travelling expenses to go to different places including Ernakulam and additional payment made to the owner of the lorry for transporting the timber (to Ernakulam), appellant sued the respondents for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Appellant stated in the plaint that cause of action for the suit arose when respondent No.2 stopped the lorry with the timber on 26.4.1992 (at Karukutty) and detained the same till the next day and when the Sales Tax Officer allowed refund of the amount at Ernakulam on 28.1992. Suit was filed in the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Respondents, among other things, contended that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit (as the alleged incident occurred at Karukutty, beyond its territorial jurisdiction). Learned Sub Judge did not frame an issue regarding territorial jurisdiction but, an issue whether the suit is maintainable was framed. Parties went for trial. Appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked his documents. Respondents examined D.W.1 in part. At that stage, learned Sub Judge considered the question of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction and by the impugned order found that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned Sub Judge was of the view that refund of the amount by the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam did not create any cause of action for the appellant and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court. That order is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short. "the Code") it is sufficient that a part of cause of action arose within the local limits of the court before which the proceeding is initiated. According to the learned counsel the order of refund passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam formed part of cause of action for the suit which is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction for the Sub Court, Ernakulam to try the suit. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents maintained the stand that since the cause of action arose at Karukutty which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Ernakulam the suit was not maintainable in that court.

4. Learned Sub Judge has proceeded on the assumption that Sec.20 of the Code applied to the facts of the case. Place of suing when compensation is claimed for wrongs to person or movables is dealt with under Sec.19 of the Code. Section 19 of the Code reads thus:

"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 plai