ORDER

1. This revision has been filed be the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No. I was employed in the State of Maharashtra and was serving as a wireless operator in the Government of Maharashtra. He was dismissed by an order dated 17-8- 1973 issued from Maharashtra. It was served on him on 28-8-1973 at his home address in district Pratapgarh. He filed the suit in 1976 in the Court of the Munsif Kunda in Pratapgarh claiming relief against the order dismissing him from the service.

2. An objection was raised on behalf of the State of Maharashtra to the effect that the suit was not cognizable in a Civil Court in Pratapgarh. The trial court has negatived the contention. Against the order refusing to return the plaint for presentation to proper court and proceeding with the suit the defendant Secretary. Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra has preferred this revision. The suit is admittedly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 20 of the Code provides that a suit can be instituted either at the place of residence of the defendant or in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. According to the plaintiff a part of the cause of action for the suit arose in Pratapgarh where the order of dismissal was served on him. The contention of the applicant-defendant is that no part of cause of action arose in Pratapgarh as the order had been passed finally in Maharashtra and the mere communication of the order could not be sufficient to give rise to a cause of action in Pratapgarh.

3. Cause of action as is well-known means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court, but it does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact which is necessary to he proved (AIR 1937 All 208 Guardian Assurance Co. v. Shiva Mangal Singh), Cooke v. Gill, (1873)8 CP 107 : 42 LJ CP 98 : 28 L T 32 : 21 W R 334, Murti v. Bhola Ram (1894) ILR 16 All 165: 1894 All W N 65 (FB). and Chand Kour v. Partap Singh (1889) ILR 16 Cal 98 : 15 Ind App 156: 5 Sar 243 (PC). The plaintiff could therefore institute the suit in Pratapgarh if the service of dismissal order would constitute a part of the cause of action.

4. In the State of Punjab v. Amar Singh I AIR 1966 S C 1313) it was held that (at p. 1316).

"an order of dismissal passed by an appropriate authority and kept on its file without communicating it to the officer concerned or otherwise publishing it will take effect as from the date on which the order is actually written out by the said authority; such an order can only be effective after it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published."

The order in question therefore could take effect only on the date it was served on the plaintiff. The service of the order was ,therefore a necessary cause of action in the transaction.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant defendant has contended that the service of the dismissal order even though may be a part of the total cause of action it was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Civil Court in Pratapgarh because the defendant could not be interested in denying the service of the order on the plaintiff and hence the question of proof would not arise. What the defence would be is wholly immaterial for determining the question whether the suit is cognizable in Pratapgarh or not because if a cause of action has arisen in Pratapgarh the suit by reason of clause (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be maintainable in Pratapgarh. Whether the defendant will deny or admit a fact cannot be the determining factor for the plaintiffs selecting the forum for the institution of the suit. The plaintiff cannot expect or presume that the defendant will admit the date of service of the order. Unless the plaintiff prove