CRP 31/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd December, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Money Suit No.1/2009 retur ning the plaint to the plaintiff/petitioner for filing in the proper Court at Ka rimganj by holding that the Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in view of Section 19 of th e CPC, has no territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner instituted Money Suit No.1/2009 claiming compensation for the all eged wrongful act of the defendants contending inter alia that he has suffered d amaged for placing him under suspension while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Karimganj and in taking disciplinary action against him. The defendants on receipt of the summons, entered appearance and filed objection relating to the territorial jurisdiction contending inter alia that the cause o f action arose within the jurisdiction of Karimganj Court and not within the jur isdiction of Hailakandi Court and none of the defendants reside within the juris diction of Hailakandi Court. Section 19 of the CPC provides that where a suit is for compensation for the wro ng done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the l ocal limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carri es on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jur isdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plai ntiff in either of the said Courts. In the instant case, the cause, as reflected in the plaint arose within the juri sdiction of Karimganj Court and one of the defendants resides within the local l imit of the jurisdiction of Karimganj Court. None of the defendants are the resi dents within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Hailakandi Court. That being the position, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court b elow in returning the plaint. The learned Court below, however, ought not to ha ve sent the record to the Court of the learned District Judge, Hailakandi for on ward transmission of the proceeding to the appropriate Court having jurisdiction in the matter, i.e. the appropriate Court in the district of Karimganj, as in t he event the Court has no jurisdiction the requirement is to return the plaint t o the plaintiff for filing the same in the appropriate Court in the district of Karimganj for which the Court, however, may fix a date for appearance of parties where the plaint is to be filed after its return, provided the plaintiff makes an application to that effect, which has not been done in the case in hand. In view of the above, while refusing to interfere with the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi relating to return of the plaint, the learned Civil Judg e, Hailakandi is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing the s ame in the appropriate Court at Karimganj. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.