@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon J.
1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The preliminary issue which was considered and'' disposed of by the order under challenge reads :-
Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit"?
2. This issue has been answered against the plaintiff and accordingly the plaint has been directed to be returned for the purpose of presenting it to the court in which it should have been instituted.
3. Before we find an answer to the question whether the court below has jurisdiction to try the suit, I shall state the law. Sections 15 to 20 of the C.P.C. both inclusive regulate the forum for the institution of suits. Of these sections, Section 20 is relevant here. This section provides that a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the defendant resides or all the defendants reside within the local limits of its jurisdiction even assuming the cause of action arises outside its local limits A question however would arise, can a suit be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction some of the defendants alone reside?. The answer apparently is that the said court can entertain the suit provided the non-resident defendant does not raise any objections thereto. But what is to happen if the non-resident objects and his objection is sustained? The plaint then may have to be returned to be presented to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said defendant resides. On the presentation of the suit in that court, the other defendants can legitimately raise identical objections and on such objections being raised what would be the fate of the suit? In such circumstances in my view, the court, the plaintiff, as arbiter litis, has first chosen, shall grant leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the case, ignoring the objection of the non-resident defendant to the maintainability of the suit. That that is possible is clear from illustration ''b'' to Section 20 C.P.C. For easy reference illustration ''b'' is extracted hereunder:-
A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A.B and C being together at Benares, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benares, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue theme at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the court.
4. Having understood the position thus, let us see whether the order is sustainable. Facts relevant in this context can briefly be stated thus:-Of the three defendants 2 and 3 are admittedly residing within the jurisdiction of the court below. Only the first defendant-the objector resides outside the local limits of the court below. That means the plaintiff petitioner can maintain the suit against defendants 2 and 3 in the court below as they admittedly are residing within the local limits of its jurisdiction. They therefore cannot be heard to say that the suit against them is not maintainable in the court below.
5. If that be the position the court below ought to have granted the requisite leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit notwithstanding the fact that the first defendant is residing outside its local limits. The petitioner-plaintiff therefore is accorded leave to proceed with the suit in the court below.
The order under challenge accordingly is set aside and the court below is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
The C.R.P. is disposed of as above.
