Section 19 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) allows a court to entertain a suit
for ‘compensation’ where wrong is done to the person or to movable
property. At the outset, it should be
understood that if a suit is regulated by the provisions of section 19,
the provisions of section 20 of the Code would not come into operation.[1]
For the applicability of section 19, two conditions needs to be satisfied: (i) wrong is done within jurisdiction a one court, and (not ‘or’)
(ii) defendant resides (or carries on business, or personally works for gain)
within the jurisdiction of other court. The conjunction "and" in the
qualifying clause leaves aside the cases
where both the conditions together
are not available; in such matters, suits are governed by other
provisions of the Code.[2]
When these conditions are satisfied, at the option of the plaintiff, either of the
courts can entertain the suit for compensation.
For the purpose of interpretation
of the section, one of the most important issues is the meaning of the phrase
‘wrong done’, i.e., when can it be said that
some wrong is done by the defendant? According to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), phrase ‘wrong done’ take in
not only the initial action complained but also the resultant effect.[3]
The Court
within whose local jurisdiction
damage was caused
or suffered or
sustained would clearly
answer the requirements of
Section 19 for
the purpose of
suits mentioned therein. For instance, when wrongful action of
defendant takes place within the jurisdiction of one court, and the plaintiff
is affected by that action for all purposes in his business within the
jurisdiction of other Court.
Sections 19 & 20(a) and (b)
of CPC do not allow one to confer territorial jurisdiction on a court simply on
the ground that the one is living at a particular place.[4]
Moreover, there being no other choice available to the litigant who wishes to
seek such compensation, he cannot whittle down the express prescription in S.
19, C.P.C, and lay emphasis on the oral evidence casually let in by him so as
to create or vest jurisdiction in the court, which has none.[5]
The wrong within the meaning of
Section 19 of the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication.[6]
Hence, the publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of
printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at
least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. It
has been opined by the Allahabad High
Court that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole
or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at
any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.[7]
For coming to this conclusion, the court had referred explanation to section 20
of the Code and opined that:
“.......A corporation shall be deemed to carry on
business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause
of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such
place. This has been clarified in Explanation II to Section 20 of the CPC
though it is not laid down that the Explanation shall apply to other sections
also. The provisions thereof can usefully be applied while interpreting similar
words used in Section 19 of the CPC. It is thus in respect of the cause of
action arising at a place that the corporation shall be deemed to carry on
business at a place where it has a subordinate office; but if the cause of
action did not arise there, the existence of a subordinate office shall not
entitle the plaintiff to institute a suit at any place of his choice.....”
Having understood the
significance of section 19, as also of the phrase ‘wrong done’, it would now
be important to know what happens when there are more than one defendant. In connection to this, it
has been opined by the Madras High Court that where there are more defendants
than one and some of such defendants stay within the jurisdiction of the Court
and other stay beyond such jurisdiction, Section 19 may not be applicable. On
the other hand, Section 20(b) may be applicable.[8] What does this mean? Does it mean that where defendants stay within the jurisdiction of the same court, section 19 would be applicable? Section 19 should be applicable in such case unless there are good reasons for a contrary position (I might have missed out a case-law on this point).
So, what we understood from this
post? First, where section 19 is applicable, section 20 will have no
application. Second, phrase ‘wrong done’ is wide enough to take into its ambit
not only the place where wrongful act is done but also the place where damage
is suffered. Third, territorial jurisdiction cannot be artificially conferred
on a court. And fourth, section 19 would not be applicable where there are more
than one defendant, and some of them stay beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
[3] The State of
Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bom 197: 1974 MhLJ 966; See also Mallikarjun Transport v. Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 400 : (2010)
5 Mah LJ 547
[4] Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. v. The
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, (1998) 46 DRJ 344, 348-49
[6] M/S Frank Finn Management Consultants v. M/S
Subhash Motwani & Anr., ILR (2009) 2 Del 158, 168-69
No comments :
Post a Comment