Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This is plaintiffs appeal against an order dated 27.11.1986 in Title Suit No. 216 of 1984 whereby the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Patna, held that the suit in question was not maintainable at Patna. Therefore, the plaint be returned for filing the same before a competent court having jurisdiction to try this suit. 2. There is no dispute that at the time when the cause of action for the suit arose, the plaintiff was transferred from Patna to Calcutta under for the orders, of the Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India and joined at the Zonal Office, Calcutta on 24.1.1983. But after having filed a petition for leave, due to certain urgent work, he left Calcutta for home. Subsequently, the Zonal Manager, although treated the petitioners absence as unauthorised, directed him to join on 7.2.1983. But later on considering the show cause of the petitioner, under the orders of the Managing Director, he was removed from service from 3.9.2983. Since the order of removal was communicated to the petitioner at Patna through the Divisional Manager, Patna, the present suit was filed before the 1st Sub-ordinate Judge, Patna, who had territorial jurisdiction. 3. It appears, an objection was taken by the respondents regarding maintainability of the suit since all the defendants were residing outsides this State and service of the petitioner was also determined at Calcutta. The learned court below, accepted the contention of the respondents and held since all the defendants are residing outside the State and the appellant was also, at the time of termination of service, served at Calcutta, therefore, for want of territorial jurisdiction, the suit was not maintainable at Patna. 4. Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that admittedly the plaintiff had got his permanent residence at Patna and the order of removal of his service was also served at Patna, therefore, the Court below as wrong in holding that he will have no jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, contended that admittedly place of service of the plaintiff at the relevant time was outside the State. Similarly impugned order was also passed at Calcutta, therefore, the court below was quite justified in returning the plaint to enable the plaintiff to file the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Similarly impugned order was also passed at Calcutta, therefore, the court below was quite justified in returning the plaint to enable the plaintiff to file the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Before turning to the crucial question, I would like to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec. 19 of the Code prescribes the jurisdiction and local limit of a court with regard to suits for compensation for wrongs to a person or movable. Sec. 20 provides that subject to the limitations, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant or each of the defendants resides or carry on business. Explanation substituted for Explanation II of the Act 104 of 1976 enumerates that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principle office in India or, in respect of and cause of action arising at any place where it has also a sub-ordinate office, at such place. Therefore, a plain reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that a suit was also maintainable at Patna, where admittedly the principle defendants has got its sub-ordinate office, namely, office of the Divisional Manager. 7. That apart, the well known test regarding jurisdiction of a Civil Court, including the residence of the parties and its subject matter can also be a deciding factor for determination of the jurisdiction of the Court. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts that the principle defendants has got its sub-ordinate office at Patna, it as to be held that the sub-ordinate judge. Patna, will also have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. 9. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the impugned order of the Court below is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, but without cost.