Skip to content


Dr. R.P. Goala Vs. Amarpal Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 229 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Raj142; 1971(4)WLN673
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 19 and 20
AppellantDr. R.P. Goala
RespondentAmarpal Singh
Appellant Advocate H.P. Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate P.N. Datt, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredKhanchand v. Harumal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 20--malicious prosecution--held, suit for compensation due to wrong done lies at place where he is served.; a malicious prosecution is in essence a malicious abuse of the process of the criminal court. if such abuse is made of the process of a criminal court in a particular place by serving that process upon the person who was maliciously prosecuted the wrong is done in the place where he is so served. ;the proper section to apply is section 20(c). as has already been shown above, part of the cause of action arose at jodhpur. the court at jodhpur has therefore jurisdiction to try the suit. - - on every date he bad to go from jodhpur. 3. having heard the learned counsel for the parties i am satisfied that the decision is correct......that it has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. the defendant is a resident of dehradun. he filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff who is an officer in the indian air force. when the summons of the criminal complaint was served the plaintiff was posted at jodhpur. the summons was served at jodhpur and the plaintiff had to attend the court at dehradun on numerous dates of hearing. on every date he bad to go from jodhpur. at that time the plaintiff was undergoing a course of instruction in control and reporting school of the air force there. this course was necessary for his future promotion in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. further on account of the service of the summons and the pendency of the criminal case against him the plaintiff had to undergo mental.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The defendant is a resident of Dehradun. He filed a criminal complaint Against the plaintiff who is an officer in the Indian Air Force. When the summons of the criminal complaint was served the plaintiff was posted at Jodhpur. The summons was served at Jodhpur and the plaintiff had to attend the Court at Dehradun on numerous dates of hearing. On every date he bad to go from Jodhpur. At that time the plaintiff was undergoing a course of instruction in Control and Reporting School of the Air Force there. This course was necessary for his future promotion in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. Further on account of the service of the summons and the pendency of the criminal case against him the plaintiff had to undergo mental agony at Jodhpur and also to undergo physical discomfort of travelling from Jodhpur to Dehradun on every, date of hearing. For these he has claimed special and general damages in the suit. The trial Court held that the Court at Jodhpur has jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the decision is correct. As is clear from the allegations made in the plaint, according to the plaintiff part of the cause of action arose at Jodhpur. Further a malicious prosecution is in essence a malicious abuse of the process of the criminal court. If such abuse is made of the process of a criminal court in a particular place by serving that process upon the person who was maliciously prosecuted the wrong is done in the place where he is so served. This view was taken in the following decisions:

1. Alexander v. Indrakrishna, AIR 1933 Cal 706.

2. Gokaldas v. Baldevdas, AIR 1961 Mys 188.

3. Khanchand v. Harumal, AIR 1965 Bom 109.

The contention on behalf of the applicant is that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the present case. This section runs as follows:

'19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.-- 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.'

4. In my opinion this section does not apply to all kinds of actionable wrongs, but only to actionable wrongs to the person or to movable property. The plaintiff was not arrested as a result of the filing of the criminal complaint. Therefore there was no wrong to his person. The proper section to apply is Section 20(c). As has already been shown above, part of the cause of action arose at Jodhpur. The Court at Jodhpur has therefore jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. The revision application is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //