order 5 Section 19 commentary cpc PDF

Preview

Summary

comprehensive practice material provided during lectures...

Description

27/08/2021

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 19 - Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

ANNOTATION Reference/Relevance within Statute

where Defendants reside or cause of action arises)

Section 20 (Other suits to be instituted Case Cited 1. State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Ind., MANU/MH/0137/1975: AIR 1975 Bom 197; Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd v. Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd. MANU/DE/0638/1998: 74 (1998) DLT 82. 2. Subhash Chandra Jain v. Vidyut Jain MANU/UP/0055/1978: AIR 1978 All 234. 3. Sreepathi Hosiery Mills Private Limited v. Chitra Knitting Company MANU/TN/0206/1977: AIR 1977 Mad 258. 4. The State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries MANU/MH/0137/1975: AIR 1975 Bom 197. 5. State of Meghalaya v. Jyotsna Das, AIR 1991 Gau 96. 6. State of U. P. v. Raja Ram, MANU/UP/0053/1966: AIR 1966 All 159. COMMENTS Section 19 provides option to the Plaintiff to institute a suit for compensation for wrongs done to his person or movable property, either in the Court within whose local jurisdiction wrong was committed or in the Court within whose local limits the Defendant resides (State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Ind.; Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd v. Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd).1 Section 19 applies to a suit where wrong to movable property has been done in the sense that it has in some way been changed so that its value diminished and the Plaintiff claims compensation for that damage (Subhash Chandra Jain v. Vidyut Jain).2 Section 19 is a specific section. It says that, where a suit for compensation for wrong done to person is laid, it should be filed at the place where the wrong is done or at the place where the author of the wrong resides or works for gain. There being no other choice available to the litigant who wishes to seek such compensation, he cannot whittle down the express prescription in Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and lay emphasis on the oral evidence casually let in by him so as to create or vest jurisdiction in the Court, which has none (Sreepathi Hosiery Mills Private Limited v. Chitra Knitting Company).3 Provisions of Section 19 are specific in subject and clear in its operation. Firstly, it governs a suit seeking restitutive reliefs of compensation on the basis of wrong done to the person or to movable property. Secondly, it offers and furnishes option or choice if the conditions indicated by the qualifying clause are satisfied in that wrong complained of was done within the local limit of one Court while the Defendant in fact resides or carries on business within the local limits of jurisdiction of another Court. Unless both these conditions together are available no question of option or choice for forum can conceivably, arise. The conjunction "and" in the qualifying clause is very much indicative of this result, leaving aside the cases where these conditions together are not available, the matters, of such suit are still governed by other provisions of the Code. It is noticeable that in the body of Section 19 the phrase "the cause of action, wholly or in part" has not been used and it only finds place in Section 20 of the Code. In a suit for compensation "wrong done" "or" "complained of" is the cause of action by which Code understands and contemplates all the bundle of www.manupatrafast.in.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=20190&actid=787&iPage=1&hText=

1/2

27/08/2021

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

necessary facts capable on proof of sustaining the relief claimed. Compensation clearly posits an injury resulting in loss and damage. Mere injury or wrong without anything more would not suffice to sustain the claim for compensation. It is clear that the phrase "wrong done" is not used in any narrow sense but has to be understood in all its amplitude so as to afford forum and necessary relief. Thus, the phraseology used by Section 19 about "the wrong done" would clearly take in not only the initial action complained on but its result and effect (The State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries).4The difference between Section 16 (e) and Section 19 is that former is applicable to civil wrongs affecting immovable property while the latter deals with wrongs to person or movable property. The words 'wrong done' in the section also includes wrong noticed (State of Meghalaya v. Jyotsna Das).5 The word 'resides' used in the section does not cover the Government of India or Government of any State. It refers to natural persons only. Therefore, where Plaintiff had never been posted at a place, he cannot sue the Government at that place for his arrears of salary and in such cases he has no option but to sue at a place where wrong has been done to him, i.e. where the cause of action has arisen (State of U. P. v. Raja Ram).6 Section 17 applies neither to the suits for injunctions nor to the suits pertaining to wrongs committed out of territorial limits of India.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 By Anupam Srivastava © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer : The views and comments expressed in the present category are those of the Author. These should not be taken to reflect the views of the organisation. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. expressly disclaims all responsibility for any loss, injury, liability or damage of any kind resulting from and arising out of, or any way related to the Content.

www.manupatrafast.in.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=20190&actid=787&iPage=1&hText=

2/2...