AYYAPPAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the consequence ensued from the wrong done to movables beyond its territorial jurisdiction entertain a suit for compensation for the wrong done is the question for a decision in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) Appellant purchased 1.278mt of teak wood from Peechi depot of the Forest Department in the auction held on 20.10.1991 for his house construction and according to him, after complying with the legal formalities he was transporting the timber in a lorry to the site of house construction at Maradu in Kanayannur Taluk on 26.4.1992. It was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Karukutty Sales Tax Check Post alleging that appellant had no valid documents. Respondent No. 2 refused permission to the appellant to proceed further with the timber to its destination. Appellant was allowed to proceed only on the next day on his paying Rs. 9,454/-.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant contended that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short. "the Code") it is sufficient that a part of cause of action arose within the local limits of the court before which the proceeding is initiated. According to the learned counsel the order of refund passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam formed part of cause of action for the suit which is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction for the Sub Court, Ernakulam to try the suit. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents maintained the stand that since the cause of action arose at Karukutty which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Ernakulam the suit was not maintainable in that court.