Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 950 (ALL)

Virendra Kumar Seth v. Roopa Seth

1985-10-07

S.D.AGARWALA

body1985
JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A suit No. 353 of 1982 was filed by Smt. Roopa Seth against the revisionist, Virendra Kumar Seth for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The allegations made in the plaint were that Smt. Roopa Seth was married to the revisionist at Aligarh on 30th May, 1978. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, Smt. Roopa Seth was given ornaments and other goods of the value of account Rs. 25,000'- by her brother and these articles were thereafter taken to the house of the revisionist, who resided at Agra. It was further alleged that on 21.07.1979, the Plaintiff opposite party was compelled to leave the house of the revisionist leaving all her ornaments and other articles which were given to her at the time of marriage and that the revisionist did not permit her to take back those articles. After filing, of the suit an objection was taken by the revisionist that the court at Aligarh has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The IIIrd Additional District Judge by an order dated 18th January, 1984 held that a part of cause of action arose at Aligarh and as such the court at Aligarh had jurisdiction relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.1984, the present revision has been filed in this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the provisions of Section 19 of the CPC are applicable to the facts of the present case and not Section 20 of the Code and the view taken by the court below is manifestly erroneous. 3. On a reading of the plaint we find that the Plaintiff-opposite party has filed a claim for a sum of Rs, 25,000/- only being the amount spent on the goods given in dowry at the time of marriage which was admittedly performed at Aligarh. in order to establish, her claim, it is necessary for her to prove that the goods worth Rs. 25,000/- had been given to her. This was done at Aligarh and as such a part of cause of action does arise at Aligarh. 4. Section 19 of the CPC is quoted below: 19. in order to establish, her claim, it is necessary for her to prove that the goods worth Rs. 25,000/- had been given to her. This was done at Aligarh and as such a part of cause of action does arise at Aligarh. 4. Section 19 of the CPC is quoted below: 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person of moveable. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court and the Defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the Plaintiff in either of the said Courts. 5. It is clear from a reading of Section 19 quoted above, that where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to movable property, then the suit can be filed either where the wrong was done, or where the Defendant resides or carries on business, or personally works -for gain. In the present case the suit is not for any wrong done to the movable property which admittedly is situated at Agra. The suit is for recovery of a sum of money which was spent on the purchase of goods. In this view of the matter Section 19 of the CPC does not apply to the facts of the case at all. The argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is consequently, misconceived. 6. In further support of his argument, learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a case reported in Rani Amrit Kunwar v. Gur Charan Singh AIR 1934 Allahabad 226. In this case it was held that where the wrong was done to movable property by its misappropriation and disposal, then the place where misappropriation and disposal has taken place is the place where the suit for compensation has to be filed. In the instant case as I have already stated above, the Plaintiff-opposite party has not sought compensation for the wrong done to movable property and as such the principle laid down in this case does not apply. 7. In the instant case as I have already stated above, the Plaintiff-opposite party has not sought compensation for the wrong done to movable property and as such the principle laid down in this case does not apply. 7. In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned judgment is in any manner erroneous in law, or that the court below has acted illegally, or with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim Order dated 12.03.1985 is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to be; their own costs.