RAM KRISHNA SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Defendants in a suit for malicious prosecution. The Defendant is residing at Calcutta, where he instituted a criminal case against the Plaintiff alleging that the Plaintiff committed an offence of robbery at Calcutta. The Plaintiff, who was resident at Mainpuri, was arrested, in pursuance of that complaint, at Mainpuri and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Plaintiff thereupon filed the instant suit for malicious prosecution against the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner was that the courts at Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to try the case and the case could be tried only by the courts at Calcutta. Both the courts below have decided the issue of jurisdiction and have concurrently held that in view of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit filed at Mainpuri was quite competent and the civil court at Mainpuri had jurisdiction to try the case. It is not disputed that the Plaintiff was arrested at Mainpuri and, therefore, a very important piece of cause of action accrued at Mainpuri. Thus on a plain reading of Section 19 the courts at Mainpuri had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the case of Ram Kishore v. Rameshwar Mahton, 1960 AIR(Pat) 570. In that case the controversy was as to who was prosecutor, the police or the person who lodged the complaint and set the machinery of law in motion. In the controversy before me this case is wholly irrelevant at this stage. The courts at Mainpuri will certainly have jurisdiction to try a case on malicious prosecution where the arrest of the accused was made i.e., at Mainpuri.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the case of Gokul Das v. Baldeo Das, 1961 AIR(Mys) 158 and Khem Chand v. Haru Mal, 1965 AIR(Bom) 109. In these cases it was held that the suit for malicious prosecution could be instituted at the place where the Plaintiff was served with the summons as an accused in a criminal case. The lower revisional court has also relied upon the cases aforesaid. I do not see any force in the writ petition.