JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment dated 28.3.2007 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Fatal Accident Claims Case No. 1/2005 by which the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The facts in brief are that a fatal accident claim for compensation was filed by the plaintiff-appellants with the averments that plaintiff no. 1 Sarjent S.S. Sheikhawat met with an accident at Vadsar, Gujarat on account of bad road conditions, when he was returning after attending one promotion party of his fellow Sarjent R.K. Mishra at 10 o' clock in the night on 1.12.2000. 3. The respondents separately filed the written statements and refuted the claim and also took an objection of jurisdiction. 4. The trial court framed the issues and first of all issue in regard to jurisdiction was decided by the impugned judgment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage and perused the impugned judgment. 6. It was inter alia contended that plaintiff-appellant no. 1 Sarjent S.S. Sheikhawat was in the service of defence and when he was returning after attending one promotion party in the night on 1.12.2000 he met with an accident at Vadsar, Gujarat on account of bad road conditions and he suffered many serious injuries and he was shifted to Ahmedabad for his treatment and on account of medical ground he has been retired from the service. It was then contended that he filed the suit not only against the State of Gujarat but also against the Government of India through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and the office of Government of India also situated at Jaipur, therefore, this suit is maintainable in a court situated at Jaipur. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Save the Children Fund U.K. & Another v. Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma & Another, reported in 1996 (2) R.L.W. page 1433 wherein while dismissing the writ petition it was held that part of cause of action occurred at Jaipur, therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suresh Chandra Sharma & Another, reported in 1996 (2) R.L.W. page 1433 wherein while dismissing the writ petition it was held that part of cause of action occurred at Jaipur, therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Swaran Kaur v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and others, reported in 1992 ACJ 790 , wherein it was held that claim of compensation was maintainable since the employee of a company owned by the Central Government of India died on account of accident in the course of his duty outside India. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the injury cases the suit under fatal accident act is not maintainable. It was then submitted that even according to the plaint, the accident occurred while the plaintiff no. 1 Sarjent S.S. Sheikhawat was returning after attending one promotion party, as such it is clear that at the time of accident he was not on duty, therefore, even according to the plaint, the principal employer-Union of India through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi is not responsible nor liable for any compensation. It was also submitted that accident took place at Vadsar, Gujarat, therefore, the suit was only maintainable at that place where the cause of action arose or at the most where the defendant resides, as such Jaipur courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. According to the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff no. 1 Sarjent S.S. Sheikhawat when returning from some promotion party met with an accident and on account of the bad road conditions he sustained serious injuries. The accident took place in the State of Gujarat. He has not alleged that this accident was on account of any fault of Government of India, otherwise also he made the Government of India is a party through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. Naturally, this office is situated in Delhi and another defendant is State of Gujarat through Chief Secretary, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, therefore, it was rightly held the court situated at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim/suit. 9. Naturally, this office is situated in Delhi and another defendant is State of Gujarat through Chief Secretary, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, therefore, it was rightly held the court situated at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim/suit. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******