Rajamannar, C.J.-These four revision petitions arise out of four suits instituted in the Court of Small Causes, Tiruchirapalli, against the Union of India (Central Government) owning the South Indian Railway, represented by the General Manager, Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods consigned by the plaintiff from Nellikuppam to different places outside the State of Madras, In the plaints the cause of action is stated to have arisen at Nellikuppam on the dates of despatch and on the dates when the goods ought to have been delivered and and on subsequent dates of claim and suit notices to the defendant. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant was liable to be sued at Tiruchirapalli, as he was residing and carrying on his usual course of business, having his offices at Tiruchirapalli on behalf of the Central Government. Objection was raised to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits.

Nellikuppam is not within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at Tiruchirapalli. The jurisdiction of the Tiruchirapalli Court was sought to be sustained, therefore, on two grounds, namely, (1) that the defendant carried on business at Tiruchirapalli, the headquarters of the South India Railway; and (2) that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tiruchirapalli Court, because notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the Manager of the Railway at Tiruchirapalli. The Court of Small Causes held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court and the defendant could not be said to be carrying on business within the local limits of its jurisdiction, and therefore directed the plaints to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiffs seek a revision of the order.

The material provision of law is section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit " actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain," or the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. Explanation II to the section runs as follows:-

" A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in British India, or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate Office, at such place."

The first question is, whether the Union of India can be said to reside or carry on business or personally work for gain within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Tiruchirapalli Small Causes Court. It was not contended that the Union Government actually resides within the Court’s jurisdiction. Nor was it seriously suggested that the Union Government personally works for gain within the said limits. It may be taken as now well established that the word ‘resides’ must be taken to refer to natural persons and not to legal entities, such as limited companies or Governments. Vide Govindarajalu Naidu v. Secretary of State1. It is equally clear that the Union of India cannot be said to personally work for gain. That description can properly apply to an individual or individuals, and not to a corporate body, still less to the Government of a State. It, therefore, remains to consider whether the Union of India can be said to carry on business within the limits of the Tiruchirapalli Court. When these revision petitions first came on for disposal, before Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., the learned Judge, after a full discussion of the case-law on the point, was inclined to hold that the Union Government cannot be said to be carrying on business within the meaning of that expression in section 20 of the Code. He thought it was desirable that there should be a decision on the point by a Division Bench of this Court, particularly in view of the fact that Venkatarama Ayyar, J., had taken a contrary view on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document