Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (3) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH , J. THOMAS P. JOSEPH J.--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. The appellant purchased 1.278 mt. of teak wood from Peechi depot of the Forest Department in the auction held on October 20, 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 April 26, 1992. It was intercepted by re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondents examined D.W. 1 in part. At that stage, the learned Sub-judge considered the question of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction and by the impugned order found that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Sub-judge was of the view that refund of the amount by the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, did not create any cause of action for the appellant and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court. That order is under challenge in this appeal. The learned counsel for the 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n business, or personally works for gain. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Kerala impleaded as defendant in view of the provisions of order XXVII, rule 5A of the Code. Respondent No. 2 who allegedly wronged the appellant by stopping movement of the timber has his office outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-court, Ernakulam. Then the question is whether the "wrong was done" within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-court, Ernakulam. What is meant by the phrase "wrong done"? Is it confined to the mere wrongful act alone? In Words and Phrases, permanent edition, volume 46, page No. 483 the word "wrong" is given the following meaning: "'Wrong' means any deprivation of right, breach o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m. Exhibits A3, A5 and A14 produced along with the plaint state that the destination was Maradu, Ernakulam. Since exhibits A3, A5 and A14 are produced along with the plaint, these also have to be considered along with the plaint averments for determining territorial jurisdiction. As movement of the timber was stopped at Karukutty on April 26, 1992 it could not be brought to Ernakulam that day. The appellant alleged that due to the illegal stoppage of movement of the timber, he had to travel to Ernakulam incurring expense, make additional payment to the owner of the lorry and thus suffered loss. The effect of the alleged wrongful act of respondent No. 2 was felt at Ernakulam as well. In such a situation in my opinion section 19 of the Code w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, they crossexamined the appellant and his witnesses and even examined their witness in part. Hence the respondents can be deemed to have waived their objection as to territorial jurisdiction. In view of the interpretation given to the phrase "wrong done" occurring in section 19 of the Code and the factual situation stated above, I am of the view that the Sub-court, Ernakulam has jurisdiction to try the suit. This appeal succeeds. The order under challenge is set aside. The learned Sub-judge is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Parties are directed to appear in the sub-court, Ernakulam on May 27, 2009. No costs.
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates