D V BARWANKAR Vs. SATYANARAIN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision has been made by the defendants against an order dated the 1st March, 1955, of the 1st Additional Munsif at Buxar, overruling the objection of the petitioners that the Buxar Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Buxar for recovery of arrears of pay from the 5th May, 1951 to the 17th January 1952, amounting to Rs. 494/-. He also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff's case, as is to be found from para. 4 of the plaint, is that while he was at Dinapore the defendants out of malice did not sanction the plaintiff's pay for the period in suits. The defendants further recommended shifting duty for the plaintiff which kept him awake throughout the night during the periods mentioned above. The result of the shifting duty was that the plaintiff's kidney trouble relapsed and he was in, trouble from this ailment. He further alleged that his medical treatment, which started at Buxar, cost him Rs. 200/-. In para. 6, of the plaint, he mentions that the cause of action for the suit arose on various dates ranging from the 17th April, 1951 to the 24th May, 1952, partly at Buxar where the treatment commenced, within the jurisdiction of that Court. The defendants filed their written statement and, in para. 7, they stated that the Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties, therefore, one of the Issues framed was Issue No. 5, which was to the effect. "Is the suit beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court?" The learned Munsif took up the question of jurisdiction first, and found that as the case of the. plaintiff was that he came to his house at Buxar on the 31st August 1951, and had an attack of renal colic in the evening of the 1st September, 1951, with high temperature and was treated by the railway doctor at Buxar, and that such an attack was a result of the shifting duty assigned to him by the defendants, the suit was also for damage resulting from the tortuous act of the defendants. He, therefore, held that as damage resulting from tort also furnishes a cause of action and as the consequent injury or damage took place at Buxar, where the plaintiff fell ill and was treated, the Buxar Court was quite competent to try the suit. He, therefore, answered issue No. 5 in the affirmative. Against this order, the defendants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) In considering the question about jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the present suit, it is necessary to bear in mind Sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 20 refers to personal actions, such as actions in tort or contract, where jurisdiction depends upon the residence of the defendant, or the accrual of the cause of action. Section 19 gives an option to the plaintiff where the cause of action accrues in the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides in the jurisdiction of another Court. This section is limited to torts. To this extent, Section 20 overlaps Section 19. Under Section 19, the plaintiff may sue either where the defendant resides or the wrong was committed. On reading the plaint, particularly paras. 4 and 6, it appears to me that the cause of action really arose at Dinapore, within the jurisdiction of Patna Court. The arrears of pay claimed in the suit are for the period when the plaintiff was, On his own case, stationed at Dinapore. Further, according to his own case, his kidney trouble, which relapsed and which was the result of the shifting duty assigned to him at Dinapore, also relapsed at Dinapore where he fell ill from this ailment. There is, therefore, no doubt, on reading the plaint, that the cause of action arose at Dinapore also. The plaintiff himself, in para. 6 of the plaint, admits that the cause of action arose partly at Buxar, which, obviously, means that the cause of action arose at another place also. This other place cannot be any place other than Dinapore, as appears from paragraph 4 of the plaint. Now, the only question for consideration is whether the plaintiff will have a right to bring the suit, at Buxar also, simply because, after his illness at Dinapore, he went to his village home and got himself medically treated there and spent some amount over his medical treatment. Mr. P. K. Bose, appearing for the petitioners, has referred me to the case of B. & N. W. Rly. Co. v. Mahomed Abdul Halim. AIR 1930 Pat 528 (A) in which Macpherson J. held that a subsequent aggravation of the damage caused by a tort, without any act or omission on the part of the defendants, does not furnish a cause of action. In my opinion, in the present case also, the plaintiff himself gave the dates as the cause of action for his suit during which he was, admittedly, at Dinapore. It was at Dinapore, as I have stated before, that the alleged damage was caused by, the defendants to the plaintiff by assigning to him the shifting duty which was the real cause for the relapse of his kidney trouble. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendants caused any further damage to the plaintiff at Buxar. If due to his alleged damage, which resulted in his illness at Dinapore, a subsequent aggravation of his disease takes place, for which aggravation the defendants were not liable, I do not think that that can furnish cause of action for the suit in order to enable the plaintiff to institute the suit at Buxar as provided under Section 19 of the Code. It does riot appear from where the Court below got that the case of the plaintiff was that he came to his house at Buxar on the 31st August, 1951 and had an attack of renal colic in the evening of 1st September, 1951, with high temperature. I do not find any such allegation having been made in the plaint. Mr. Eose, I think, is, therefore, justified in submitting that the Court below has gone beyond the plaint in this respect. In my opinion, the order of the Court below is wrong, and must be set aside. It is accordingly held that jurisdiction does not lie in the Court of the Munsif at Buxar. Let the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.