Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

Code of Civil Procedure Section 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.

19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.—Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Illustrations

(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

Part in Red is original provisions from CPC reproduced here for reference.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

==========

Simplified Explanation:

Section 19 provides for institution of suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable property.

Judgments:

(a) In State of Assam & Ors. v. Dr. Brojen Gogoi & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 143, the Supreme Court examined a case wherein the Bombay High Court had granted anticipatory bail to a person who was allegedly connected with the offence, for all practical purposes, in a place within the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court and all such activities had perpetuated therein. The Apex Court transferred the case from Bombay High Court to Gauhati High Court to be heard further.

(b) In C.B.I., Anti-corruption Branch v. Narayan Diwakar, AIR 1999 SC 2362, the Apex Court considered a case where the respondent was the Incharge /Collector in Daman within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court and an FIR had been lodged against him in Daman for hatching conspiracy. He stood transferred to Arunachal Pradesh within the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court. The CBI gave him a wireless message from Bombay advising him to appear before its officers, in respect of investigation of the said case, in Bombay. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court did not decide the case on merit but observed as under:-

“Suffice it to say that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the Gauhati High Court was clearly in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. In our considered view, the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Gauhati High Court was not maintainable.”

The entire argument in the case had been that the Gauhati High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no cause of action had arisen, even partly, within its territorial jurisdiction and receiving the message in Arunachal Pradesh to appear before the CBI Authority at Bombay did not give rise to the cause of action, even partly.

Reference:

1) http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf

Please share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.