S. Mohan, J.
1. The question of jurisdiction arises in this revision in the following manner. A contract was entered into between the revision petitioner and a third party (insured) that the goods delivered at Kothagiri (Nilgiris District) will have to be transported to Cochin. But it so happened, owing to torrential rains, that the tea forming the subject-matter of the contract got damaged. Thereafter the National Insurance Company got itself subrogated to the rights of the insured and filed the suit at Coimbatore. Admittedly, subrogation took place at Coimbatore. So the question arose whether the suit ought to have been filed at the place where the contract was entered into or at the place where the damages took place, both of them being in Nilgiris District. In contradistinction it was contended that Coimbatore Court had jurisdiction. The Court below has answered the same in the affirmative. In seeking to revise its order what is urged before me is that the suit in essence is one for damages caused to movable property which will fall under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, notwithstanding the subrogation the Coimbatore Court will have no jurisdiction. I am totally unable to agree.
2. Under Section 20(c) if part of the cause of action arose for filing of the suit, that Court could have jurisdiction. In this case, admittedly subrogation took place at Coimbatore. It should also be noted in this connection that it will be open to the defendant-revision petitioner to contend that there is no valid subrogation in the eye of law. In such an event, even if it is found that the petitioner had caused damage, in so far as there is no valid subrogation, in the eye of law, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, looked at from this point of view, undoubtedly, the subrogation has a great bearing and that being a part of cause of action which has arisen in Coimbatore, I hold that the order of to Court below is correct. I find support for this view in A.A. Co. v. Union of India : AIR1959Cal563 . That case is on all fours to the one on hand because by assignment of railway receipts, the claims thereunder were transferred in favour of the Insurance Company and the letter of subrogation showed that the Insurance Company was subrogated to all the rights of the consignor. Accordingly, it was held that the place where the right of subrogation took place would provide, the necessary cause of action under Section 20(c).
3. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.