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.
