- (1.)Smt. Sudesh Kumari had Savings Bank Account No. 5602 with the State Bank of India, Ghaziabad Branch, where she had a locker also. She died on 28th of May, 1977, leaving behind Neelam and Indu, two minor daughters and Sat Dev Sharma, husband. On the 14th of Oct., 1977, the two minor daughters filed a suit at Amritsar, through their maternal grandfather, against the (i) State Bank of India, Ghaziabad, (ii) State Bank of India having its Head Office at New Delhi, and (iii) Sat Dev Sharma, their father, for a mandatory injunction directing the State Bank to allow the plaintiffs or their agent to open and operate Locker No. 101 and Savings Bank Account No. 5602, standing in the name of their mother Smt, Sudesh Kumari, by providing keys of the locker and all kinds of facilities etc. It was also alleged that their father is giving out that their mother had executed a will in his favour with regard to the said locker, which is a false and frivolous document.
(2.)The State Bank opposed the suit and raised a preliminary objection that the Civil Court at Amritsar had no jurisdiction to try the suit on which following issue No. 5 was framed:- 5. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the trial Court, by order dated 7th of Dec. 1978, held that the Court at Amritsar has jurisdiction to try the suit, Against the aforesaid order, the State Bank has come to this Court in revision.
(3.)Shri R. K. Chhibbar, appearing for the State Bank of India has urged that the Court below was in error in passing the Impugned order inasmuch as the explanation to S. 20 of Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), was not kept in view by it. In order to appreciate the argument, it will be useful to reproduce S, 20 of the Code-
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides; or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution, or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in., part, arises. 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 sub-ordinate office, at such place."
A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that under sub-s. ***** the suit could be filed against the state Bank of India only where it carries on business and according to the explanation it shall be deemed to be carrying on business either at its sole or principal office in India or at a subordinate office provided some part of cause of action arises at such place, meaning thereby that even without any cause of action arising at the place of principal office a suit can be brought against the State Bank of India where its principal office is situate, but a suit can be brought against a subordinate office of the State Banks of India only if any cause of action has arisen at such place.