B. and N. W. Ry. Co. vs Mohammad Abdul Halim

Macpherson, J.—In this application for revision the contention is that the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr illegally assumed jurisdiction in a suit brought against the petitioner by the opposite party.

It is urged on behalf of the opposite party, first, that though the main cause of action may have arisen outside the-jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge, yet he made an independent claim in respect of which the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, and secondly, that in any case this Court ought not to interfere in revision.

In a collision on the railway of the petitioner which occurred on 22nd January 1298, opposite party who was a passenger sustained personal injuries and, it is alleged, lose of property. The collision took place in the Darbhanga District. The passenger went to his home at Shekhpura in the District of Monghyr and there spent money on medical expenses.

On 7th June 1928, he instituted the suit out of which this application has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr claiming damages against the petitioner railway company and stated that the cause of action had arisen on 22nd January 1928, which was the date of the collision. He claimed a sum of Rs. 9,221-9-0 made up of various items which included Rs. 550 as expenses of medical treatment and incidental expenses.

The learned Subordinate Judge held-that though the main cause of action arose outside the limits of his territorial jurisdiction yet as under Expn. 2 to Section 20, Civil P.C. a corporation is deemed to carry on business not only at its sole or principal office in British India but also in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a sub-office--at such place, the cause of action partly arose within the jurisdiction of his Court. He set out:

That is to say, the expenses incurred in the treatment of the injuries sustained in the collision and claimed in this suit do form a cause of action and they were incurred as alleged by the plaintiff at Shekhpura in his-jurisdiction. u/s 20 the suit can be-brought where a part of the cause of action arose and the defendant also has got sub-office in the limits of this Court.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this view of the law is erroneous. It is urged that though submissions as to the amount of expenses incurred in the treatment of the injuries are properly set out in the plaint as material facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim yet they are not essential to the cause of action and do not constitute a cause of action independently. The plaintiff himself gave the date of the cause of action as the date of the collision. The medical expenses incurred at a later date certainly do not form an independent cause of action.

If any authority were needed for this point it would be found in the decision of this Court in Allan Mathew-son v. Chairman of the District Board of Manbhum [1920] 5 Pat. L.J. 359 whore it was held that a subsequent aggravation of the damage caused by a tort without any act or omission on the part of the defendant, does not furnish a fresh cause of action. The submissions regarding the medical expenses incurred owing to some injuries in the collision are only material on the question of the damages which can be given on the original cause of action.

To my mind the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be supported. As to the second point, it appears to me that this is a proper case for interference in revision. As was stated in Dhanwanti Kuer v. Sheo Shankar Lal [1919] 4 Pat. L.J. 340 though an erroneous decision on a question of law or fact after jurisdiction has once been legally assumed would not be a ground for interference u/s 115, Civil P.C, yet, if it is the very basis and foundation of jurisdiction in its limited sense, as distinguished from powers, it at once comes within the purview of this section. In my opinion this Court ought to interfere in this case.

Accordingly the order of the Court below is set aside and it is held that jurisdiction does not lie in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr. Let the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Pleader''s fee two gold mohurs.