GOKALDAS HOLARAM Vs. BALDEVDAS P CHABRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of jurisdi-tion arises in this civil revision petition in this way. The plaintiff who is the respondent in this civil revision petition, brought a suit in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages from his father-in-law who is the petitioner in this revision petition. The plaintiffs case was that ho was subjected to a malicious prosecution by the defendant in the Court of the 19th Presidency Magistrate, Bombay which ended in bis acquittal. On September 25, 1956, according to the defendant's case, a defamatory communication was addressed by the plaintiff to his wife which however was enclosed in an envelope addressed to a friend of the plaintiff's wife. This Communication was made the subject matter of the prosecution for defamation by the defendant against the plaintiff and the summons in that criminal case which was commenced in the Bombay Court was served on the plaintiff in Bangalore on December 18, 1956, The order of acquittal in the criminal case was made on May 16, 1958, and the suit out of which this revision petition arises was instituted in the Principal Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore on June 1, 1959. According to the plaintiff it was possible for him to institute the suit in the Bangalore Court since he was served with summons in the criminal case within the jurisdiction of that Court.

(2.) Before the Court below, a contention was raised on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff had to bring his suit only within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court in which the plaintiff was prosecuted and that the fact that he was served with the summons issued by the Bombay Court, within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court would not entitle him to bring the suit in the Bangalore Court. The Court below repelled that contention and was of the view that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. This civil revision petition is directed against that order made by the Court below.

(3.) Mr. Gopiballabha Iyengar appearing on behalf of the petitioner laid emphasis on the provisions of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and urged that the Court in which the plaintiff could institute the suit for recovery of the damages claimed by him was the Court within whose jurisdiction the wrong complained of by him was done or the defendant resides, or carries on business, or perso- nally works for gain. According to Mr. Gopival-labha lyengar, since no wrong was done within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court and the defendant neither resided, nor carried on business, nor lersonally worked for gain within its jurisdiction, he suit brought by the plaintiff in the Bangalore Court was clearly incompetent.