JUDGMENT A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. : This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), has been filed against the order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balasore in Money Suit No.11 of 2004-III deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Court on a petition filed by the petitioners who are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the said Money Suit filed by opposite parties as plaintiffs. The conten¬tion of jurisdiction was assailed on the grounds of cause of ac¬tion. 2. The petition was rejected by the learned Civil Jude (Senior Division), Balasore holding that the plaintiffs have a cause of action at Balasore and the Court at Balasore has juris¬diction to entertain the suit. The late husband of opposite party No.1 joined service of the instant petitioner-company as Senior Supervisor in December, 1995. Later on, he was posted as Senior Branch Supervisor, Bhagalpur Office of the TCI Ltd., vide order dated 30th October, 1998. The order was passed by the Regional Manager, TCI Ltd. Thereafter, he was transferred from that office to Dibyapur office in the district of Aureya. At that time when he was carrying with him cash amount of about Rs.4-5 lakhs and coming from Kanpur Area office to Dibyapur for the purpose of making payment to truck owners etc., and in the night of 30th April, 2001 he did not reach at his house, a report of his miss¬ing was lodged at Babupurwa Police Station of Kanpur Nagar by the Area Manager, of Kanpur Area Office of TCI Ltd. But thereafter, his dead body was recovered. He was murdered. Plaintiff No.1 became widow at the age of 22 years and she decided herself to get educated and now she is studying +3 Arts in Jagannath Col¬lege, Barunasingh of Balasore district. Plaintiff No.2 is the minor daughter of Asim Kumar Sarangi, the late husband of plain¬tiff No.1, who is also studying in the Lower KG of DAV English Medium Public School at Balasore. 3. Mentioning the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs filed Money Suit claiming compensation against the defendants who are petitioners in the instant revision petition. The Transport Corporation of India Ltd., has its Branch Office at Balasore and the Branch Manager of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Bala¬sore is petitioner No.4 in the instant revision petition (defend¬ant No.4 in the said Money Suit). 4. The Transport Corporation of India Ltd., has its Branch Office at Balasore and the Branch Manager of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Bala¬sore is petitioner No.4 in the instant revision petition (defend¬ant No.4 in the said Money Suit). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore. 5. Learned Civil Judge has observed in his impugned order that Section 19 of the C.P.C., which deals with cases of compensation for wrong done to the person or movable property, is wide enough to take in those places where plaintiff or person complaining actually suffered the loss because of the alleged wrongful act notwithstanding the place of such wrongful act clearly furnishing place of action. The phrase “wrong done” is indicative of completed action and is wide enough to take in the results as the basis for the purposes of restitution. The Court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or suf¬fered or sustained would clearly answer the requirements of Sec¬tion 19 for the purpose of suits mentioned therein. Besides, the provision of Section 19 of the C.P.C. to some extent over lapped Section 20 of the C.P.C. and the reading of the provisions of Section 19 of the C.P.C. appears to be made as providing institu¬tion of a suit for compensation for wrong to person or movable property either on the Court within whose jurisdiction the wrong is done or the defendants reside or carry on business or person¬ally works for gain. In the present case, admittedly the defend¬ants have a branch office at Remuna Golai, Balasore within the jurisdiction of the Court below. 6. In the above regard Section 20 of the C.P.C. is liable to be perused which is quoted hereunder: “20. In the present case, admittedly the defend¬ants have a branch office at Remuna Golai, Balasore within the jurisdiction of the Court below. 6. In the above regard Section 20 of the C.P.C. is liable to be perused which is quoted hereunder: “20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises-Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave or the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. [Explanation]. - A corporation shall be deemed to carry on busi¬ness at its sole or principal office India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordi¬nate office, at such place.” 7. In the case of New Moga Transport Co. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 677 the Apex Court in paragraph-9 of the judgment held as follows : “9. Normally, under clauses (a) to (c) the plaintiff has a choice to forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of residence or business of the defendant and can file a suit at a place where the cause of action arises. If the defendant desires to be protected from being dragged into litigation at some place merely because the cause of action arises there it can save itself from such a situation by an exclusion clause. The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that where the corpo¬ration has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises business at that place. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia “carries on business.” 8. The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that where the corpo¬ration has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises business at that place. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia “carries on business.” 8. Since in the instant case the petitioner No.4, i.e., the subordinate office of petitioner No.1 is situated at Bala¬sore, it cannot be said that the Transport Corporation of India Ltd. does not carry on business at Balasore through its subordi¬nate office. Therefore, in view of the Clause (a) of Section-20 the Court below has jurisdiction to decide the suit against the defendants (petitioners in the instant revision petition) as the Transport Corporation of India Ltd. also carries on business at Balasore through its Branch Office situated at Balasore. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court has found no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the im¬pugned order. Therefore, this revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.