IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6740 of 2008 Date of decision:24.03.2009 Branch Manager, National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED), Chandigarh ...Petitioner versus D.N.Gupta, Manager (under suspension) NAFED, and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Revision is against an order dismissing an application filed by the defendant to take up the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue filed under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC. I directed the counsel on both sides to address arguments on the preliminary issue viz the jurisdiction of the Court, although not framed and taken up as such at the trial Court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the suit has been filed for a declaration that the order of suspension, constitution of an enquiry that ultimately culminated into dismissal, are null and void. According to the learned counsel, all those proceedings were generated from the head office at New Delhi and no part of cause of Civil Revision No.6740 of 2008 - 2 - action took place at Chandigarh where the suit was instituted. Learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in S.B.Tarlok Capt. Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2003 (2) SLR 277, where in a suit challenging the refusal by a grant of permanent commission in Armed Services, the Court held that the place of service of notice would not constitute a cause of action to file a suit in the place where such impugned notice was served. 2. In response to this plea, the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is that cause of action is a bundle of actions and the order of termination was served within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh when he was working in a branch office of the defendant Company within the jurisdiction of Court at Chandigarh. He refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Moga Transport Company Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2004 J.T. 294, to bring home the point that explanation to Section 20 states that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. The Supreme Court was dealing with the claim of a transport Company against an Insurance Company for damages where the place of default was shown to be at a subordinate office and the action at the subordinate office constituted the cause of action. 2. On a due consideration of facts and the reliance of authorities cited by the learned counsel, I am of the view that the cause of action must be understood as that particular action or a chain of Civil Revision No.6740 of 2008 - 3 - actions in relation to a transaction which forms the basis for the lis between the parties. The lis in this case is the order of suspension, the constitution of enquiry and the termination of service. The act complained of the plaintiff is the action of the defendant corporation which is constituted in Delhi. The orders which are challenged are orders passed at Delhi and all the relevant records concerning the same are at New Delhi. The fact that the plaintiff was working in a branch office at Chandigarh or that it was served at his residence within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh, in my view, does not constitute the cause of action. The preliminary issue that was required to be framed and in respect of which the defendant sought for an adjudication had a sound legal basis and the rejection of the plea by the defendant, in my view, suffers from legal impropriety that calls for intervention in revision. 4. The issue as to territorial jurisdiction is taken up as a preliminary issue and on the basis of arguments made, the Court below is directed to return the papers to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court at New Delhi. 5. Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.03.2009 sanjeev