Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard the learned counsel Mr. M. Choudhury, appearing for the respondent (defendant). 2. The T.S. No. 31/2004 was filed by the plaintiff to claim promotion under the defendant, was returned on 25.04.2008 (Annexure-9), by the Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The Appellate Court sustained the Trial Court's decision through the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-10) in the Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2008 and therefore the aggrieved plaintiff has approached the Revisional Court. 3. The petitioner is serving as the Assistant Manager under the UTI Asset Management Company (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the employer") and while posted at Mumbai, the employee filed the T.S. No. 519/2001 before the Civil Court in Delhi against denial of promotion and his consideration for future promotion by the employer. The defendant objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court by filing an application under Order 7, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Thereafter on 15.7.2003 the plaintiff conceded the issue and applied for return of the plaint. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge, Delhi through the order dated 15.7.2003 (page-13) returned the plaint for presentation in the appropriate Court. 4. At that stage, on 30.9.2003 the employer served the plaintiff with a transfer order to Guwahati and accordingly he filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., for modification of the Court's earlier order dated 15.7.2003, to enable him to present the plaint before the Guwahati Court. Accordingly the Delhi Court modified its earlier order dated 15.7.2003 and ordered for return of the plaint for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction instead of at Mumbai, through its order dated 13.12.2003 (Annexure-2). 5. Then the plaint was re-presented in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kamrup, Guwahati but in the W.S. filed by the defendant, they questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Guwahati Court to try the suit by contending that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court. 6. 5. Then the plaint was re-presented in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kamrup, Guwahati but in the W.S. filed by the defendant, they questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Guwahati Court to try the suit by contending that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court. 6. The defendant's objection to want of territorial jurisdiction was considered by the Trial Judge at Guwahati but through the initial order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure-7), the Court rejected the employer's objection by observing that the Delhi Civil Court passed necessary order on 15.7.2003 while returning the plaint and therefore the defendant's plea of the suit being barred on account of territorial jurisdiction can't be questioned now by the defendant. 7. After answering the jurisdictional issue in plaintiff's favour, the Court proceeded to consider the suit and at the stage when the plaintiff was being subjected to cross-examination by the defendant, the Court felt the necessity of reconsidering whether, it had the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and/or whether this issue was set at rest earlier by the Court's order dated 27.9.2004. 8. Upon re-consideration, the learned Trial Judge this time upheld the employer's objection and accordingly the plaint was returned to the plaintiff. Although the Trial Court's order was challenged by the aggrieved plaintiff through the Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2008, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati upheld the decision of the Trial Judge on lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently the plaintiff's Misc. Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-10). 9.1. Assailing the legality of the impugned decision, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. P.K. Tiwari submits that the suit was filed to claim promotion by alleging that the plaintiff was superseded by his juniors and since denial of promotion by employer is a continuous wrong, the petitioner with his all India transfer liability under the defendant is entitled to file the case in a Court where he is posted. Moreover since the employer has operational office at Guwahati, where the plaintiff is posted, the Guwahati Court is jurisdictionally competent to try the suit. 9.2. Moreover since the employer has operational office at Guwahati, where the plaintiff is posted, the Guwahati Court is jurisdictionally competent to try the suit. 9.2. The petitioner also contends that the cause of action for the claim for promotion has arisen at the plaintiff's place of posting, where the defendant has a Branch office and therefore the Court at Guwahati has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 9.3. As the learned Trial Judge initially rejected the defendant's objection on 27.9.2004, the senior counsel contends that the principle of constructive res-judicata gets attracted at the subsequent stage of the same proceeding and since the appealable order of the Trial Court was left unchallenged by the defendant, the same objection at a later stage, could not have been entertained by the same Court. 10.1. Representing the defendant, the learned counsel Mr. M. Choudhury submits that the plaintiff was considered for promotion by the employer but was found unsuitable on the criteria of merit cum seniority and since this decision was taken at Mumbai, only a Bombay Court can exercise jurisdiction, to address the grievance of the plaintiff. 10.1. The defendant contends that the place of posting can't determine the issue of jurisdiction, in grievance relating to denial of promotion and therefore it is argued that the Court rightfully returned the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. 10.2. Referring to the 1st order passed by the Trial Judge on 27.9.2004, Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel submits that the Trial Judge misread the Delhi Court's order as the Delhi Judge never stated that the Guwahati Court has the jurisdiction and therefore it is argued that the 1st order of the Trial Judge passed on 27.9.2004 was erroneous and therefore the Court was competent to give a fresh decision on the jurisdictional aspect of the suit. 10.3. The defendant further contends that since this Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the case is not maintainable in law. 11. 10.3. The defendant further contends that since this Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the case is not maintainable in law. 11. Before proceeding to consider other aspects, it may be appropriate at this stage to decide whether this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable and whether the aggrieved plaintiff should have filed a Revision Petition under Section 151 of the C.P.C. The 1st proviso to Section 151 of the C.P.C. was substituted w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and interpreting the amended provision, the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not curtailed by the amended provision. When a Subordinate Court fails to exercise jurisdiction which it does have and there is a failure of justice occasioned thereby, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction for keeping the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. That apart, invocation of Revisional Power under Section115 of the C.P.C. by the High Court in the case in hand may not be available because of the 1st proviso to Section 115, as the suit was not finally disposed of by the impugned orders and only the plaint was returned, to be filed before the competent Court. Therefore because of this bar, the aggrieved plaintiff could not have filed a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. In such circumstances, having regard to the contour of the supervisory power available to the High Court, I hold that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable. 12. The order passed by the Delhi Court on 15.7.2003 (as modified by the subsequent order of 13.12.2003), does not specify the Court of competent Jurisdiction and the Court simply observed that the returned plaint can be presented in the appropriate Court. Therefore the basis for the 1st decision on 27.9.2004 given by the Civil Judge at Guwahati, while rejecting the defendant's objection, could not have been attributed to the orders passed by the Delhi Court. But nevertheless the jurisdictional objection of the defendant was rejected by the Trial Judge on 27.9.2004 and although this was an Appealable order, the defendant failed to challenge the same before the higher Court. But nevertheless the jurisdictional objection of the defendant was rejected by the Trial Judge on 27.9.2004 and although this was an Appealable order, the defendant failed to challenge the same before the higher Court. But at a later stage during the cross-examination of the witnesses, the Guwahati Court by constructing the orders passed by the Delhi Civil Judge declared that the Guwahati Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 13. In his plaint, the petitioner pleaded about the continuous cause of action for being deprived of promotion and accordingly applied for a decree upon the employer for considering the plaintiff for future promotion in the defendant organization. Therefore in this Service Law case, the principle of continuing wrong will apply and the plaintiff can't be non-suited only because, he was denied promotion earlier. In my view, the employee can file a suit to claim future promotion on the basis of a continuous and recurring wrong done to him and support for this opinion can be gathered from Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . Moreover in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan reported in AIR 1959 SC 798 , the Supreme Court while examining the issue of continuing wrong under Section 23 of the old Limitation Act, 1908, held that whenever the wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong and in such cases, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which, the said wrong continues. If we examine the plaintiff's grievance of being deprived of the expected promotion and apply the ratio of Tarsem Singh (Supra) and Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare (Supra), it is apparent that his grievance of not being promoted is a recurring wrong and it offers a continuous cause of action to the aggrieved plaintiff against his employer. 14. The next issue to be decided is whether the original decision of the Trial Court in rejecting the defendant's objection to territorial jurisdiction could have been changed by the same Court five years later, at another stage of the same suit. 14. The next issue to be decided is whether the original decision of the Trial Court in rejecting the defendant's objection to territorial jurisdiction could have been changed by the same Court five years later, at another stage of the same suit. In Y.B. Patil vs. Y.L. Patil reported in AIR 1977 SC 392 , the Supreme Court was examining the applicability of the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the C.P.C. at subsequent stage of the same proceeding. In this case, it was held that the principle of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, but the principle also gets attracted at subsequent stage of the same proceeding. The ratio of Y.B. Patil (Supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade reported in (1999) 5 SCC 590 where it was observed that when a issue has been determined at a certain stage of a suit between the same parties, the doctrine of res judicata would apply at another stage of the same proceeding. 15. In the case in hand, the Trial Judge rejected the defendant's objection on 27.9.2004 and answered the issue on territorial jurisdiction in plaintiff's favour. Therefore this key issue was decided finally by the trial Judge. Whether the decision was erroneous because it was wrongfully attributed to the decision of the Delhi Court is an aspect which need not concern this Court since the defendant never challenged the said decision of 27.9.2004, although it was an appealable order. Therefore when the jurisdictional issue was answered in plaintiff's favour at one stage of the suit, under the principle of constructive res judicata, the Trial Judge could not have taken a different view, at a subsequent stage of the same proceeding. 16. Moreover under the explanation to Section 20 of the C.P.C., the defendant being a body corporate with all India presence, with Branch office at Guwahati, can be a basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the Guwahati Court in a case, where the plaintiff can apply for redressal against the employer. If we examine the pleadings in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had stated of being continuously wronged by deprivation of promotion because of which, he sought a decree for his future promotion. If we examine the pleadings in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had stated of being continuously wronged by deprivation of promotion because of which, he sought a decree for his future promotion. Thus the cause of action in a case of deprivation of promotion, arises out of a continuous wrong and the said grievance continues with the employee, wherever he is posted. 17. It must also be observed that just because promotions are considered at the Head Office of the employer at Bombay, it can't be expected that all aggrieved employees must file cases only within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court. In my view, when future promotion is claimed, the suit can be filed at the place where the plaintiff is posted, provided that the defendant Corporation has a subordinate office at that place where the suit is filed. Therefore considering the legal existence of the employer at Guwahati within the meaning of the explanation to Section 20 of the C.P.C., I hold that the Courts erred in answering the jurisdictional issue against the plaintiff and thereby they committed a jurisdictional error. 18. In view of above and since the power under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised to judicially intervene with jurisdictional error by the subordinate Court, the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-10) in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2008 of the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati and the previous order dated 25.04.2008 (Annexure-9) of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in the T.S. No. 31/2004 are held to be unsustainable and the same are quashed. Consequently the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit on merit, in accordance with law. With this order, this Revision Petition stands allowed. No cost. 19. The Registry should send back the LCRs with a copy of this order to the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati for further steps in accordance with law.