JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is a suit to set aside the sale of a certain putni taluk, under Reg. VIII of 1819, which was effected through the Collector of Burdwan, the property being knocked down to Defendant No. 2, on the 15th of May 1905. The validity of the sale is challenged on various grounds, but there is only one point with which we are concerned on the present appeal. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the only persons who entered appearance in the suit. They contended that the Hughly Court in which the suit was instituted had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the putni sale having been held in the Burdwan Collectorate and all the Defendants having been admittedly residents of Calcutta. The learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly decided that point which was the only point argued before him, against the Plaintiff and directed the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff's pleader for presentation to the proper Court. After that order, which was dated the 16th of July 1906, the Plaintiff took back his plaint and presented it to the Burdwan Court, which the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 said was the proper Court, and in which, I understand, two other suits are pending with reference to the same sale. The Plaintiff presented the plaint in that Court; it was filed in that Court and defences have been put in that Court; but whether the case has gone beyond that stage, we are not informed. In these circumstances, an objection is taken by the Respondents that, having regard to the action of the Plaintiff in presenting his plaint to the Burdwan Court, in other words, in accepting and acting under the order of the 16th July 1906, it is not now open to him to appeal from that order. Upon the merits of the order, without expressing any final opinion, I am disposed to say that the case fell within sec. 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was a suit to obtain relief respecting immoveable property situated within the limits of different districts. It is conceded that a portion of the property is situated in the Burdwan District and another, I believe the larger portion, in the Hughly District. 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was a suit to obtain relief respecting immoveable property situated within the limits of different districts. It is conceded that a portion of the property is situated in the Burdwan District and another, I believe the larger portion, in the Hughly District. Sec. 19 deals with suits for immoveable property situated in different districts; and, if the property is situated in different districts the suit may be instituted in any Court otherwise competent to try it, within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. Sec. 19 is the only one dealing with the case of immoveable property situated in different districts which is not controlled by the language of sec. 16. It seems, then, that the suit could properly be brought in the Hughly Court. But the subsequent conduct of the Plaintiff in presenting the plaint to the Burdwan Court and proceeding with the suit there, presents to my mind considerable difficulty as regards his right of appeal from the order. It was not obligatory upon him under the order to present the plaint to the Burdwan Court, he might simply have appealed against the order: and not have taken any action under it. But having availed himself of the benefit of the order, it was a benefit to him in the sense that he would not have to pay any fresh institution fee, and having elected to present his plaint in the Burdwan Court, I do not see how he can now turn round and appeal from the order. He might have objected to the order by appealing against it and not taking any proceedings in the Burdwan Court. But having once taken proceedings in that Court, he seems to have exercised the option that was given to him either to avail himself of the order or to appeal against it, and he elected to proceed under the order and availed himself of it. I think in principle the case is within that laid down in the case of Pearce v. Chaplin 9 Q. B. 802: s. c. 16 L. J., Q. B. 49 (1846) and in a much more recent case in the Court of Appeal in England, the case of Neale v. Electric and Ordnance Accessories Company, Id. L. R, (1906) 2 K. B. 538. L. R, (1906) 2 K. B. 538. If we were to accept the Plaintiff's contention and discharge this order, he would, I am afraid, find himself in a position of much difficulty later on. But we have nothing to do with that -that is, his own affair. I however think having regard to his action, it is not now open to the Plaintiff to appeal from the order. 2. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs-hearing fee, ten gold mohurs. Fletcher, J. I agree.