PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al.

Present: The Hon. Mr. A. G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice, and
Mr. Justice Middleton.

PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al.

D. C., Kandy, 17,549.

" Cause of action, " meaning of-Where it arises-Contract made in one place-Performance at a different place-Jurisdiction of Court of place of performance-" Cause of action "-" Wrong "-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 5 and 9 (c).

The plaintiff and the defendants entered into a contract at Colombo which was to be performed at Kandy. The plaintiff, alleging a breach of the contract by the defendants, sued them for damages in the District Court of Kandy. On objection taken to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action,-

Held (affirming the judgment of the District Judge), that the District Court of Kandy had jurisdiction to entertain the action.

LASCELLES A.C.J.-In order to give a Court jurisdiction it is not necessary under the Code that the whole cause of action, namely, both the agreement and the breach, should have taken place within its jurisdiction.

LASCELLES A.C.J.-A failure to perform a contract is a " wrong " within the meaning of the definition of the expression " cause of action."

English decisions as of action " not followed. the meaning of the expression " cause of action" not followed.

THIS was an action instituted by the plaintiff in the District Court of Kandy for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed at Colombo to lease to the plaintiff the premises called Haramby House, situate at Kandy, for a period of ten years commencing from 15th June, 1905, as soon as certain works, buildings, alterations, and improvements had been effected; that the defendants agreed to finish the said works, buildings, alterations, and improvements, at their own expense, on or before the 15th May, 1905, and in default to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 150 a day for each and every day beyond that date that the said works, buildings, &c, or any of them shall remain unfinished. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had committed a breach of the said agreement at Kandy, and claimed a sum of Rs. 32,400 as damages and further damages at the rate of Rs. 150 per diem till the works were completed.

The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that the District Court of Kandy had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, inasmuch as the whole cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction.

On this point the District Judge (J. H. de Saram, Esq.) delivered  the following judgment:-

" The first issue is one of law, whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this action.

" The plaintiff's claim is founded on a deed, whereby the defendants contracted to do certain works, and make alterations and improvements, to the house known as Haramby House, situate in Kandy. He claims Rs. 32,400 as liquidated damages, and a further sum of Rs. 150 a day from the date this action was instituted, for breach of the agreement. The alleged breach is the failure to complete the works stipulated for in the contract,

" The defendants reside, and the contract was made, in Colombo. The only circumstance therefore that will give this Court jurisdiction is that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.

" The defendants contend that the cause of action did not so arise, because by ' cause of action ' must be understood the whole cause of action, and that is compounded of the contract and the breach. They rely upon Allhusen v. Malgarejo(1), where the Court had to interpret the provisions of ' The Common Law Procedure Act 1852 ', which entitled a plaintiff to issue a writ of summons against a party resident abroad, in cases where ' there is a cause of action which arose within the jurisdiction ', and it was held that ' cause of action ' meant the whole cause of action, and therefore included both the contract and the breach. They also relied upon the definition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document