RSA No.1762 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1762 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.02.2010 The Food Corporation of India .……Appellant Versus Sh. Jatinder Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by defendant No.1-Food Corporation of India. Jatinder Singh respondent No.1 filed suit against appellant and proforma respondent No.2 and 3 at Ludhiana claiming recovery of Rs.1,50,000/-. Wheat bags numbering 180 weighing 121 quintals 35 Kgs were loaded in plaintiff's truck No.PB-10C-9547 by defendants for transportation from Karnal to Jammu. The plaintiff did not deliver the said goods at the destination. Plaintiff's case is that his truck was consequently mpounded by defendant No.1 on 23.11.1993 and documents like registration certificate were seized. Without documents, the plaintiff could not ply the truck. The plaintiff filed writ petition No.18163 of 1995. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 10.01.1996 directed the plaintiff to deliver back the goods to the appellant herein and also to return the RSA No.1762 of 2009 -2- amount of Rs.6000/- which had been paid to the plaintiff as freight for transporting the wheat from Karnal to Jammu. The plaintiff accordingly unloaded goods at Karnal and also returned the amount of Rs.6000/-. However, documents of plaintiff's truck were not returned and the plaintiff had to file contempt petition in this Court. Ultimately, the documents were returned on 13.03.1996, pursuant to order dated 10.01.1996 passed in the writ petition. Without documents, the plaintiff could not ply his truck since 10.01.1996 till 13.03.1996. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the same. The plaintiff also claimed Rs.50000/- as damages for mental torture. The defendants contested the suit and raised various pleas including the objection that the Court at Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 decreed the suit partly for recovery of Rs.50000/- as damages with future interest at the rate of 6%per annum. Defendant No.1 preferred first appeal wherein plaintiff filed cross-objections. Learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant No.1, but partly allowed the cross-objections preferred by the plaintiff and enhanced the amount of damages to Rs.1,10,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The following substantial question of law arises for RSA No.1762 of 2009 -3- determination in the instant second appeal:- “Whether Court at Ludhiana has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit” Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), 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. It was contended that no part of cause of action arose at Ludhiana and, therefore, the Civil Court at Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit because sole or principal office of appellant-Corporation is also not at Ludhiana, although its subordinate office is there. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this contention has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India versus Evdomen Corporation, 1999 (2) Supreme Court Cases, 446. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent No.1 contended that the suit was for compensation for wrong done to moveable property and, therefore, under Section 19 C.P.C suit could be filed at the place where the wrong was done. It was contended that in the absence of the documents of the truck, the truck remain stranded at Ludhiana and, therefore, effect of the wrong done occurred at Ludhiana and consequently Court at Ludhiana had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 19 C.P.C. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment RSA No.1762 of 2009 -4- of Bombay High Court The State of Maharashtra versus Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bombay 197. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also contended that even under Section 20 C.P.C, Court at Ludhiana has territorial jurisdiction because appellant-Corporation has its subordinate office at Ludhiana. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Arora versus The Bengal National Textile Mills Limited, 1977 PLR 555 and also a judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and others versus Ranjit Kumar Mishra, AIR 1980 Orissa 152. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Insofar as Section 20 C.P.C is concerned, Court at Ludhiana would not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit under the said provision. The wheat was loaded at Karnal and was to be delivered at Jammu. Therefore, no part of cause of action arose at Ludhiana. The appellant-Corporation also does not have its sole or principal office at Ludhiana. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Food Corporation of India (supra), the appellant-Corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office in India and not at Ludhiana, the principal office being at Delhi. Since no part of cause of action also arose at Ludhiana, Court at Ludhiana would not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit merely because appellant- Corporation has a subordinate office there. In view of explanation to Section 20 C.P.C, Corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or if cause of action arises at the place RSA No.1762 of 2009 -5- of subordinate office, then that place also. In the instant case, since cause of action did not arise at Ludhiana, location of subordinate office at Ludhiana would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ludhiana. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra), judgment of this Court in the case of Surrinder Kumar Arora (supra) and judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) cannot be relied on. Now coming to applicability of Section 19 C.P.C, in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra), goods were being taken to Akola, but movement thereof was stopped outside Akola. It was held that resultant damage on account of stoppage of goods outside Akola occurred at Akola where the goods were to be used by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, it was held that part of 'wrong done', the expression used in Section 19 C.P.C, would be deemed to have taken place at Akola conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Akola. In the instant case, however, no part of alleged 'wrong done' occurred at Ludhiana. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded as to how Court at Ludhiana had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It was pleaded that the truck in question stood registered at Ludhiana and the defendants carry out their business throughout India where they are deemed to have permanent place of business. However, mere registration of truck at Ludhiana would not come within the purview of the expression 'wrong done' as used in Section 19 C.P.C and it would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 vehemently contended that the plaintiff's RSA No.1762 of 2009 -6- truck remained stranded at Ludhiana and, therefore, consequence of the 'wrong done' was felt at Ludhiana and, therefore, Court at Ludhiana has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 19 C.P.C. The contention cannot be accepted because the same is beyond the pleadings. It was not pleaded by the plaintiff that the truck remained stranded at Ludhiana and, therefore, consequence of the 'wrong done' was suffered at Ludhiana. In the absence of pleading, the contention has to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it has to be concluded that the Court at Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the substantial question of law as framed hereinabove is answered in favour of the appellant and finding of Courts below on issue No.2 is reversed. Necessarily, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before Court having territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff is directed to appear before the trial Court at Ludhiana on 11.03.2010 to receive back the plaint. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.02.2010 A. Kaundal