( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 115 of the CPC by the defendant in OS. 166 of 1973 on the file of the I Addi Munsiff, Belgaum. The defendant-Corporation is aggrieved by a finding on issue No. 1 settled in the suit, whereby it was held that the Court at Belgaum had jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of some damages for the delay in the determination of a departmental appeal preferred by the plaintiff against his dismissal from lemployment. It is seen from the pleadings that the plaintiff was employed in Kolar Divn of the defendant-Corporation at the time of his dismissal by the Deputy General Manager who was incharge of that Divn as the Principal Officer. He appealed against the dismissal to the General Manager whose office was situated in Bangalore at the principal place of business of the Corporation. That appeal had not been disposed of on the date of suit. Aggrieved by the delay in the disposal of that appeal the plaintiff has sued for damages. One of the defences of the defendant-Corporation was that the Court at Belgaum had no jurisdiction to try the suit as neither the cause of action arose within the limits of its jurisdiction nor was the principal place of business of the defendant situated therein. The learned Munsiff held against the defendant on the said issue. ( 3 ) IT seems to me clear from a combined reading of Ss. 19 and 20 of the CPC, especially Expln. II to S. 20 thereto that the plaintiff could have sued the Corporation only at Kolar where the cause of action arose or bangalore where the principal office of the Corporation was situated. The learned Munsiff was in error in thinking that S. 19 was independent of s. 20 of the CPC. That these two sections have to be read together would be apparent from the opening words of S. 20 itself, namely, 'subject to the limitations aforesaid'. It is also to be seen from Cl (a) of S. 20 CPC that the expression 'carried on business, or personally works for gain' are repeated in S. 19 itself. Therfore, the said expression must be understood in the same sense in both the sections. Expln. II to S. 20, therefore, would govern the provisions of S. 19 also. It is also to be seen from Cl (a) of S. 20 CPC that the expression 'carried on business, or personally works for gain' are repeated in S. 19 itself. Therfore, the said expression must be understood in the same sense in both the sections. Expln. II to S. 20, therefore, would govern the provisions of S. 19 also. It follows from this that even if a Corporation is sued in a case on the basis of the provisions of S. 19 of the CPC, the requirements of Expln. II of S. 20 would be clearly attracted. ( 4 ) THE object behind Expln. II has been stated by ths Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sri Ladolal Jain, AIR. 1963 SC. 1681. to be:" The principle behind the provisions of Cls (a) and (b) of S. 20 is that the suit be instituted at a place where the defendant be able to defend the suit without undue trouble. "4. There is one other decision of the High Court at Nagpur in Bharat insurance Co Delhi v. Wasdeo Ramachandra, AIR 1956 Nag. 206. on which relience was placed by the learned Govt Advocate. The relevant passage reads thus :" The result of Expln 2 to S. 20 is to restrict the meaning of 'carries on business' in Cl (a) in relation to Corporations. A Corporation can bet sued at its sole or principal office in India. At any place, where it has a subordinate office, it can be sued only in respect of a causes of action arising at such a place. But in the presence of Cl (c), the purpose of the second part of the second explanation is obscure. However that may be, where the suit is instituted at a place where a Corporation maintains a subordinate office, the Court cannot dispense with the requirement that the cause cf action must arise at such a place. " (underlining italics is mine ). I am in respectful agreement with the latter enunciation. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, it is no doubt true that the Corporation has got a divisional office at Belgaum. But all the same if the litigant intends tc see the Corporation, he should further establish that the cause of action arose at Belgaum. I am in respectful agreement with the latter enunciation. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, it is no doubt true that the Corporation has got a divisional office at Belgaum. But all the same if the litigant intends tc see the Corporation, he should further establish that the cause of action arose at Belgaum. In the present case the latter condition is clearly not fulfilled, as the cause of action for the plaintiff on his own showing arose at Kolar. ( 6 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, this petition clearly deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. It follows therefore that the learned munsiff at Belgaum has no jurisdiction to try the cause. In view of this conclusion the other findings of the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained. The matter, however, stands remitted to that Court with a direction that the learned Munsiff should make an appropriate order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. No cost. --- *** --- .