Problem

(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys
goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the
goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where
the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.

A - tradesman in Calcutta – plf

B - carries on business in Delhi – def

C - B’s Agent, in Calcutta.

Goods delivered in Calcutta.

Ans

Suit can be filed

Either in Calcutta –CoA arose

Or Delhi where B carries on business.

Sec 20

 In all other cases, the suit can be instituted :

 a)where the defendant/s resides/carries on business/personally works for gain.

 b) if there are 2 or more defendants, where either of them resides/carries on

business/personally works for gain – but you either need the leave of the court or the acquiesce
(consent) of the other defendants in such a case.

 c) where the cause of action wholly/partly arises.

 PROBLEM

A resides at Shimla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C
make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at
Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or
at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant object, the
suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

A resides at Shimla, (plf)

B at Calcutta (def)

C at Delhi (def)

A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand,
and deliver it to A.

Ans

 A may sue B and C

 At Benaras, where the cause of action arose.

 He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or

 At Delhi, where C resides

 but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant object, the suit cannot proceed
without the leave of the Court.

CASE

The agreement stated that ‘jurisdiction regarding all disputes is at Delhi, where the agreement
has been signed and executed’, but the agreement by parties was not signed at Delhi but at
some other place, then the agreement cannot be said to be conferring exclusive jurisdiction to
Civil Court at Delhi. Party can file a suit under section 20(c) at place where cause of action wholly
or partly arose; Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999
MP 271.
 Problem question

 Explanation to sec 20

 [Explanation].-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office
in [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate
office, at such place.

 A textile manufacturing company having its Head Office at Bangalore, had branch offices at
Hubli, Mysore and Mangalore. A dispute cropped up between Mr. Babu and Prakash Transport
Company in respect of transaction through Hubli office. Mr. Babu files a suit in respect of the
dispute against the company in the court of Mangalore. Is the court of Mangalore is competent
to decide the case? Give reason.

 Ans. NO. Suit is to be filed at Hubli – where CoA arose.

 Patel Roadways v. Prasad Trading Co. AIR 1992 SC 1514, that if a corporation has got a
principal office and also one or more subordinate offices and cause of action arises at a place
where it has got a subordinate office then only that place will have jurisdiction and not the place
where it has principal office.
 JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS

Who may be joined as plaintiffs? – Order 1 Rule 1

All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs as the case may be, where-
a. Any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts
or transactions is alleged to exist in/ against such persons, whether jointly or severally or in the
alternative; and

b. If such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.

• But the both above conditions must be fulfilled.

• The provision clearly mentions two grounds upon which a party may be joined in a suit at a later
point of time as well.

• First, the party must have a right to claim a relief, either arising out of the same act or same
transaction or arising out of a series of acts or transactions upon which the suit rests.

• Second, if a separate suit is filed, there would exist a common question of law or fact.

• It should also be read that the two conditions must be read together and not in priority of the
first over the second.
Order 6 Rule 6 – Condition precedent

 Condition precedent is an event that must occur before the parties are obliged to perform.

 The performance of a condition precedent need not be pleaded since it is implied in the
pleadings.

 Non-performance of a condition precedent, however, must be specifically and expressly

pleaded.

 Eg: ‘A’ agrees to build a house for ‘B’ and then receive payment.

 Building the house is a condition precedent to receive the payment. If the builder ‘A’ sues for
payment, it will be presumed that the condition has been duly performed.

 If ‘B’ pleads non-performance, the burden of proving due performance will be on ‘A’.