H.P. University vs Miss Sudesh Kumari

Chet Ram Thakur, J.—In this revision petition the point that falls for determination is whether the court at Nahan had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Sudesh Kumari against the Himachal Pradesh University, Simla for a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the H.P. University in January, 1972, debarring her from taking any of the University examination for a period of three years was illegal, void and without any justification. The Defendant-- University took up the objection before the Senior Sub-Judge that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit as neither the cause of action arose at Nahan nor the Defendant was a resident of Nahan. The Senior Sub-Judge, by his order dated 29th March, 1974, repelling the contention of the Defendant held that the court at Nahan had jurisdiction to try the suit.

The case is governed u/s 20 of the CPC which is a residual section. Under this section a court gets jurisdiction if (1) the Defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of its jurisdiction, or (2) the cause of action arises wholly or in part within such local limits. It has been held in The Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. Vs. P.J. Pappu and Another, that where the Defendants neither resided nor carry on business, nor any part of the cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, such court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit u/s 20 CPC In the instant case the principal seat of the University admittedly, is at Simla and it has got no subordinate office at Nahan. It is also not denied that the Petitioner is a body corporate. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the explanation to this section fully covers the case of the Petitioner and that it being a corporation and its principal office being at Simla and that no cause of action has arisen at any other place where it has also a subordinate office, therefore, the Respondent cannot contend that the court at Nahan had the jurisdiction. In order to give jurisdiction to a court in a case against a corporation both things must subsist, i.e. there must be a subordinate office of the corporation as also the cause of action must have arisen at that place. In the present case, according to him, neither there is any subordinate office nor the cause of action had accrued to the Plaintiff-Respondent at Nahan. He has also drawn support from a few authorities.

The first authority is Bharat Insurance Co. Delhi v. Wasudeo Ramchandra AIR 1956 Nag 203. In this case a policy of insurance was effected with an insurance company the head office of which was at Delhi. The proposal for the policy was made at Delhi and was accepted at Delhi. The money was also payable to the nominee at Delhi. The assured died at a place in Hyderabad State. The nominee brought a suit at Nagpur where the company had a branch office. It was held that the Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, it was held that the result of Explanation 2 to Section 20 is to restrict the meaning of ''carries on business'' in Clause (a) in relation to corporations. A corporation can be sued at its sole or principal office in India. At any place where it has a subordinate office, it can be sued only in respect of a cause of action arising at such a place.

In Medungadi Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1961 Kerala 50 it had been held that if no part of the cause of action arises at the place where the branch office is situate, the mere fact of the corporation having a branch office will not give the Court of that place jurisdiction to entertain a suit.

In Bhola Nath Aggarwal and Anr. v. The Empire of India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 Lah 56 also it had been held that a corporation can be said to carry on business at the place where it has a branch office only in respect of a cause of action which arises wholly or in part at such place. If no part of the cause of action accrues at the place of the branch office, the mere fact of the corporation having a branch office at the place will not give the Court jurisdiction.

These authorities, therefore, lay down the principle that in a suit against a corporation a suit will lie only at a place either where the corporation has got its principal place of business or office or at a place where it has got its sub-office, provided the cause of action either wholly or in part accrues there. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he bases his case on Clause (c) which says that a suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises, and, according to him, the Explanation 2 to this section would not be applicable in his case. But I am afraid if his contention is correct. He also relies on Bharat Insurance Co. Delhi (supra). But after having carefully gone through the facts of the case I am of the view that this authority does not support him, rather it supports the contention raised by the Petitioner that in the case of a suit against a corporation it is not only the cause of action which determines the forum of suit but it must have a sub-office also at that place where the cause of action wholly or in part arises or the suit must be instituted at its sole or principal office.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on Gauhati University v. Sailesh Ranjan Deb AIR 1955 Gau 9, where in the B.T. examination was held within the Municipal limits of Shillong and the College also from which the candidate appeared was situated in Shillong. The Plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, K and J of Shillong Hills for a declaration that he had passed the B.T. examination of the Gauhati University held in the year 1949 and prayed for an injunction to that effect to be served on the Gauhati University authorities to publish his name in the list of successful candidates of the aforesaid year and claimed damages for Rs. 500 for wrongful exclusion of his name from the list of successful candidates. It was held that it could not be said that no part of the cause of action took place within the limits of the Shillong Court which extended its jurisdiction over the Municipal area. After having gone through the facts of the case I find that Explanation 2 to Section 20 was not taken into consideration so as to say whether the Gauhati University had a sub-office at Shillong to give jurisdiction to the court or not and, therefore, the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable.

In the case in hand the principal office of the Defendant--University is at Simla. It has got no sub-office at Nahan, even if it may be said that any cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff at Nahan. In fact the cause of action accrued wholly in Simla where the order disqualifying and debarring her from appearing in the examination for three years was passed and the order was only communicated to her at Nahan and, therefore, the communication of the order does not give any cause of action to the Plaintiff. If the order had not been communicated after it had been passed at Simla even then the Plaintiff could not appear in any examination in any University because this order which was passed at Simla was a clear bar or impediment in her way for appearing in any examination at any University even though the same had not been communicated to her. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the Respondent to say that since the order was communicated to her at Nahan, therefore, a part of the cause of action accrued at Nahan so as to give jurisdiction to the Court for entertaining the suit against the corporation which had no sub-office at Nahan.

Consequently, the revision is allowed and the order is set aside. The plaint shall accordingly be returned for presentation to the proper court. However, in the circumstances that the Plaintiff is a student, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.