ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and is directed against the decision of the court below deciding a preliminary issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bareilly where the suit in question has been filed. 2. The relevant facts are these. The plain tiff-opposite-party filed a suit against the defendant-applicant and some others for damages for having published a defamatory article against the plaintiff, whereby it was falsely alleged that plaintiff No. 2 was the wife of plaintiff No. 1. A written statement was filed on behalf of the applicant raising various pleas. A plea was raised to the effect that the Court at Bareilly had no jurisdiction to try the suit, inasmuch as the newspapers in which the defamatory article is said to have been published, were not being published at Bareilly but at various other places. Another plea was raised to the effect that defendant No. 2 was wrongly impleaded in the suit as no part of any cause of action is alleged against her. Pleas of multifariousness were also raised. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Out of the issues framed, four issues were tried as preliminary issues. These issues were as follows: Issues No. 8. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? Issue No. 11. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants? Issue No. 12. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and causes of action? Issue No. 13. Whether the matter in suit is sub judice. If so its effect? 4. All these issues were answered against the defendant-applicant by the trial court. The trial court held that the newspapers in which the articles in question were published had circulation at Bareilly and consequently, cause of action for the suit did arise within the territorial limit of the court at Bareilly. As regards the issue of misjoinder of defendants, the court below held that it could not be said that the impleadment of defendant No. 2 was unjustified inasmuch as there were assertions made in the plaint against defendant No. 2 as well. The trial court further held that there was no misjoinder of causes of action and the suit was not bad for multifariousness. The Court also answered issue No. 13 against the applicant. 5. The trial court further held that there was no misjoinder of causes of action and the suit was not bad for multifariousness. The Court also answered issue No. 13 against the applicant. 5. Aggrieved, the applicant filed Revision before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing before Third Additional District Judge, Bareilly. The learned District Judge Bareilly has taken the view that the Court at Bareilly did have jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was not bad for multifariousness or misjoinder of parties. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the present Revision has been filed in this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged two points before me : - (1) That the courts below have acted with material irregularity in holding that the suit was triable at Bareilly inasmuch as none of the newspapers which contained the defamatory article was published from Bareilly. Learned counsel submitted that publication means the printing and publishing of the newspaper and does not include the circulation of newspaper at other places, where the cause of action is said to have arisen. (2) That the impleadment of defendant No. 2 was wholly unwarranted and was an abuse of the process of the Court. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, I am of opinion that there is no force in this revision and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Taking the first point first, I am of opinion that circulation of the newspapers at a place is included within the connotation oi the word "publishing of the defamatory matter." The circulation of the newspaper, in my opinion, constitutes cause of action for a suit of the nature with which we are concerned. "Publication" in a suit for defamation is not merely physical act of printing of the newspaper or publishing it at a certain place: it takes within its sweep also the act of publicity of the defamatory matter at a place. The publicity can be done in a variety of ways including circulation of newspaper at a certain place. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on illustration (b) of Section 19 of the Code which is as follows : - "(a) .............................. The publicity can be done in a variety of ways including circulation of newspaper at a certain place. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on illustration (b) of Section 19 of the Code which is as follows : - "(a) .............................. (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statement defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi." In the first place, illustration to section in a statute is not exhaustive but is only illustrative of the true scope and ambit of a section. In the second place, in my view, the illustration only means that the act of publishing a defamatory matter in Calcutta, also gives jurisdiction, and consequently, the courts at Calcutta will also have jurisdiction. The illustration has not dealt with the question whether the circulation of newspaper at a third place would also give jurisdiction to that place. In my view, the illustration does not deal with the situation with which we are concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant then relied on a decision in the case of Chiranjilal Agrawal v. Rikliabdas reported in AIR 1959 Raj 291 . in which it has been held that in eases of torts based on defamation, place of publication is the place from where a newspaper is printed and published, and that publication does not extend to the publication of any newspaper at any other place. With respect, I am not inclined to agree with the broad proposition laid down in the case. Moreover, in that case, I do not find that the issue with which we are concerned was involved, namely, the circulation of a newspaper containing a defamatory article at a third place. The decision, therefore, is of no help to the decision of this ease. I am clearly of the view that the view taken by the court below is correct, and that the courts at Bareilly did have jurisdiction to try the suit on the averments made in the plaint. 9. Coming to the second point, I find that in para. 9 of the plaint, it has been clearly alleged that the publication in question has been made by defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2. In view of this averment, the impleadment of defendant No. 2 cannot be said to be improper. Learned counsel then contended that the averments contained in Para. 9 are far too vague. 9 of the plaint, it has been clearly alleged that the publication in question has been made by defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2. In view of this averment, the impleadment of defendant No. 2 cannot be said to be improper. Learned counsel then contended that the averments contained in Para. 9 are far too vague. In my view for the consideration of the question that the impleadment of defendant No. 2 is bad or not, the Court is not required to go into the value of the averment made in the plaint or even their truth. In any case, I cannot say that the view taken by the court below even on the second point is vitiated by any error of jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the Revision fails and is dismissed with costs.