Place of Suing

The idea behind the proviso is that if the court does not need to touch the land, only to order the defendant to do something, then having the defendant is enough. The Explanation adds that "property" in the section means property situate in India.

Section 17 deals with immovable property lying within the jurisdiction of different courts. The suit may be instituted in any court within whose limits any portion of the property is situate, provided that the entire claim, in respect of value, is cognizable by that court.

Section 18 deals with uncertainty about which of two or more courts the property falls in. Any one of those courts may, if satisfied there is ground for the uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and then proceed, and its decree has the same effect as if the property were within its limits.

Section 19: wrongs to the person or to movables

Section 19 provides that where a suit is for compensation for a wrong done to the person or to movable property, and the wrong was done within the limits of one court while the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain within the limits of another, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either.

The Code gives two illustrations, and they are the neatest statement of the section:

A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

So for a tort against the person or goods, the plaintiff chooses between the place of the wrong and the place of the defendant.

Section 20: everything else

Section 20 is the residuary provision, and in practice it is the one most often used, because contract and money suits fall here.

Subject to the limitations already stated, every suit shall be instituted in a court within whose local limits:

(a) the defendant, or each 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; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, so resides or works, provided that either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not so reside acquiesce in the institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The Explanation provides that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or, in respect of a cause of action arising at a place where it also has a subordinate office, at that place.

Three points deserve pulling out.

"Actually and voluntarily resides" excludes a temporary or forced presence. A defendant does not become suable in a district because he was passing through it.

Clause (c) is very wide. The cause of action need arise only in part within the local limits. In a contract case that can mean the place where the contract was made, where it was to be performed, or where payment was to be made, and each may be a different district. That is why so many suits can properly be filed in more than one place, and it is what makes [Transfer of Suits] necessary.

The corporation Explanation has two limbs, and the second is the useful one: a company can be sued at a subordinate office, but only in respect of a cause of action arising at that place. A student who states only the principal-office limb has given half the rule.

The Code's illustrations to section 20

A is a tradesman in Calcutta and B carries on business in Delhi. B, through his agent in Calcutta, buys goods from A and asks A to deliver them to the railway company. A delivers them in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price either in Calcutta, where the cause of action arose, or in Delhi, where B carries on business. That is clause (c) against clause (a).

A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. The three being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand and give it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of those cases, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court. That illustrates clause (b) and the proviso exactly.

A worked example

Meera lives in Thane. She contracts in Mumbai with Nilesh, who lives and works in Nashik, for goods to be delivered in Pune, payment to be made in Mumbai. The goods are never delivered and she wants to sue for the price paid.

Filter one, subject matter. A money claim on a contract. An ordinary civil court can try it.

Filter two, pecuniary. Section 15: the lowest grade of court competent to try a claim of that value.

Filter three, territory. This is not a suit about immovable property, so section 16 is out. It is not compensation for a wrong to person or goods, so section 19 is out. Section 20 applies.

Under clause (a), Nashik, because Nilesh resides and works there. Under clause (c), Mumbai, where the contract was made and where payment was to be made, and Pune, where delivery was to be made, since the cause of action arose at least in part at each. So Meera may properly file in Nashik, Mumbai or Pune.

Note what does not appear on that list: Thane. Where the plaintiff lives is irrelevant under section 20. That is the commonest mistake on this topic.

Change one fact. Suppose Nilesh is a company with its principal office in Nashik and a branch in Pune, and the contract was made at the Pune branch. By the Explanation, the company is deemed to carry on business at Pune for a cause of action arising there, so Pune is available under clause (a) as well as clause (c).

Change another. Suppose Meera sues both Nilesh in Nashik and a second defendant living in Mumbai, and files at Mumbai. Only one defendant resides there, so she needs clause (b): either the leave of the Court, or Nilesh's acquiescence.

And another. Suppose instead the dispute is about a flat in Chembur, and she wants a declaration of her title to it. Now section 16(d) applies and the suit belongs where the property is situate, in Mumbai, whatever anyone's residence.

Last one. Suppose the flat straddles the boundary between two courts' limits. Section 17 lets her file where any portion lies, provided the whole claim is within that court's value limit. And if it is genuinely unclear which side of the line it falls on, section 18 lets a court record a statement of the uncertainty and proceed.

What it does not mean

Where the plaintiff lives does not matter. Section 20 speaks of the defendant's residence and the cause of action, never the plaintiff's.

"Cause of action wholly or in part" is not the whole cause of action. A part is enough, which is why several courts are often available.

Section 15 is not a jurisdictional bar in the strong sense. Filing above the lowest grade is an irregularity dealt with by section 21(2), not a nullity.

The section 16 proviso is not a general escape. It applies only where the relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant's personal obedience.

A company is not suable at every branch. Only at the principal office, or at a subordinate office where the cause of action arose there.

Quick revision

Order of work: subject matter, then section 15 for value, then sections 16 to 20 for territory.

Section 15: the court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit.

Section 16: six classes of suit about immovable property go where the property is situate. Proviso: relief obtainable entirely through the defendant's personal obedience may instead be sought where the defendant resides or works.

Section 17: property in two jurisdictions, file where any portion lies, if the whole claim is within that court's value limit. Section 18: uncertainty, the court records a statement and proceeds.

Section 19: compensation for wrongs to person or movables, at the plaintiff's option, where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides or works. Illustrations: the beating and the defamation.

Section 20: (a) all defendants reside or work; (b) any defendant does, with leave of the court or the others' acquiescence; (c) the cause of action arises wholly or in part. Explanation: a corporation carries on business at its principal office in India, and at a subordinate office for a cause of action arising there.

Test yourself

1. In which court must a suit be instituted, as to value? In the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, under section 15.

2. Where is a suit for partition of immovable property filed? In the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, under section 16(b), subject to pecuniary and other limits.

3. A, living in Delhi, defames B in Calcutta. Where may B sue? Either in Calcutta, where the wrong was done, or in Delhi, where A resides. Section 19 gives the plaintiff the option, and this is the Code's own illustration to that section.

4. State the three limbs of section 20. A suit may be filed where all the defendants actually and voluntarily reside, carry on business or personally work for gain; or where any one of several defendants does so, provided the leave of the Court is given or the other defendants acquiesce; or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part.

5. Where is a company deemed to carry on business? At its sole or principal office in India, and, in respect of a cause of action arising at a place where it also has a subordinate office, at that place.

6. Does it matter where the plaintiff resides? No. Sections 19 and 20 look to the defendant's residence or place of business and to where the cause of action arose. The plaintiff's own residence is not a ground for choosing a court.

7. Immovable property lies within the limits of two different courts. Where may the suit be filed? In any Court within whose local limits any portion of the property is situate, under section 17, provided that in respect of the value of the subject matter the entire claim is cognizable by that Court.