PRABHAVATHI AND ORS. Vs. OMANAKUTTY AMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contesting defendants in a suit raised objections regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court. The objections were overruled as per the impugned order. Hence this revision at the instance of those defendants.

(2.) One Karunakaran Nair who was the vehicle Supervisor of the Perumbavoor Depot of K.S.R.T.C had died before the institution of this suit. The first plaintiff claims to be his legally weded wife and their children are plaintiffs two and three as well as the 5th defendant. As the plaintiffs got information that defendants 1 to 4, claiming to be the legal heirs of the said Karunakaran Nair, have been hying to collect the amounts due to the deceased from the K.S.R.T.C., the suit was instituted for injunction and other allied reliefs. It is averred in the plaint that cause of action for the suit had arisen at Puthupally village which is situate within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was filed, when the plaintiffs came to know of the moves of those defendants. The objections regarding jurisdiction were raised in the written statement contending that no cause of action arose at Puthupally as alleged and that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. While overruling the objections, the learned Munsiff has pointed out that jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not upon what may ultimately be found true. According to the learned Munsiff, the averments in the plaint that cause of action has arisen at Puthupally village and also that the residence of the 5th defendant is at the place mentioned which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court are sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction. In addition to those, learned Munsiff is of the opinion that when one of the offices of the K.S.R.T.C. is at Kottayam that is yet another ground to find jurisdictional competence with the court in which the suit was instituted.

(3.) Sections 15 to 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) deal with provisions relating to the place of suing. Sec. 20 of the Code says that every suit (other than those referred to in the preceding four sections) shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction "any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain". However, such institution is subject to the condition that either the leave of the court is given, or those other defendants who do not reside, or carry on business etc., within such local limits acquiesce in such institution. Sec. 20 also permits institution of suits in a court within the local limits of which jurisdiction "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises". According to the plaintiffs, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit on account of one of the two factors i.e., cause of action has partially arisen within the jurisdiction, and the residence of the 5th defendant is at a place which is within the jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the contesting defendants argues that the 5th defendant is not really a defendant, albeit his being arraigned in that category. According to the counsel, 5th defendant is in fact one of the plaintiffs and he happened to be put on the defendants array only on account of his non-availability to affix his signature in the plaint. This argument need not be considered if it is a case where no leave was given by the court or the other defendants did not acquiesce, since such conditions must further be satisfied to render a court with jurisdictional competence when residence factor of one of the defendants is pressed into service. If cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is situated, such court gets jurisdiction even if the other factors do not exist.