Section 19 of CPC, 1908 deals with the situation where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, and 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. In such a case, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.
This provision is important because it gives the plaintiff the flexibility to choose the court in which to file his suit. This can be beneficial to the plaintiff in a number of ways. For example, the plaintiff may choose to file the suit in the court where he resides, or in the court where the defendant resides or carries on business, or in the court where the wrong was done. This can be convenient for the plaintiff and can save him time and money.
Procedure under Section 19 of CPC
The following is the procedure to be followed under Section 19 of CPC:
- The plaintiff must file the suit in the court of his choice.
- If the defendant contests the jurisdiction of the court, the court will decide the issue of jurisdiction.
- If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it will proceed to hear and dispose of the suit.
- If the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it will dismiss the suit and allow the plaintiff to file the suit in the appropriate court.
Important points to note of Section 19 of CPC
- Section 19 of the CPC applies only to suits for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property. It does not apply to suits for other causes of action, such as suits for declaration, injunction, or specific performance.
- The plaintiff can choose to file the suit in any of the courts that have jurisdiction under Section 19 of the CPC. He is not required to file the suit in the court where the wrong was done.
- The defendant can contest the jurisdiction of the court by filing a written objection. If the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the court, the court will assume jurisdiction and proceed to hear and dispose of the suit.
Conclusion: Section 19 of CPC
Section 19 of the CPC is an important provision that gives the plaintiff the flexibility to choose the court in which to file his suit. This can be beneficial to the plaintiff in a number of ways. The plaintiff should carefully consider all the factors involved before choosing the court in which to file his suit.
Examples
Here are some examples of situations where Section 19 of CPC can be applied:
- A car driver from Delhi hits a pedestrian in Mumbai. The pedestrian can file a suit for compensation against the car driver in either Delhi or Mumbai.
- A newspaper publishes a defamatory article about a person who resides in Delhi. The person can file a suit for defamation against the newspaper in either Delhi or the place where the newspaper is published.
- A company with its headquarters in Mumbai sells a defective product to a customer in Delhi. The customer can file a suit for compensation against the company in either Delhi or Mumbai.
These are just a few examples of situations where Section 19 of the CPC can be applied. It is important to note that the provision applies to all suits for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, regardless of the nature of the wrong.
Here are some case laws on Section 19 of CPC, 1908:
A.I.R. 1926 Madras 421:
In this case, the Madras High Court held that Section 19 of the CPC gives the plaintiff the option of filing the suit in any of the courts that have jurisdiction. The court also held that the defendant cannot object to the jurisdiction of the court if he has not raised the objection in the written statement.
A.I.R. 1959 Andhra Pradesh 328:
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the plaintiff can file a suit under Section 19 of the CPC even if the wrong was done outside the jurisdiction of any court in India. The court also held that the defendant cannot object to the jurisdiction of the court if he has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 1283:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that Section 19 of the CPC is a remedial provision and should be liberally construed. The court also held that the plaintiff can choose to file the suit in any of the courts that have jurisdiction, even if the defendant has raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court.
(2005) 3 SCC 614:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 19 of the CPC is not ousted by the fact that the suit could have been filed in another court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court also held that the court which records a statement under Section 18 of the CPC must exercise its jurisdiction with caution and circumspection.
(2010) 12 SCC 1:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 19 of CPC is not limited to cases where the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The court also held that the plaintiff can choose to file the suit in any of the courts that have jurisdiction, even if the defendant has raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court.
These are just a few examples of case laws on Section 19 of the CPC. There are many other case laws that have interpreted and applied this provision in different situations.