- (1.) This revision has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 was employed in the State of Maharashtra and was serving as a wireless operator in the Government of Maharashtra. He was dismissed by an order dated 17-8-1973 issued from Maharashtra. It was served on him on 28-8-1973 at his home address in district Pratapgarh. He filed the suit in 1976 in the Court of the Munsif Kunda in Pratapgarh claiming relief against the order dismissing him from the service.
(2.) An objection was raised on behalf of the State of Maharashtra to the effect that the suit was not cognizable in a Civil Court in Pratapgarh. The trial court has negatived the contention. Against the order refusing to return the plaint for presentation to proper court and proceeding with the suit the defendant Secretary, Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra has preferred this revision. The suit is admittedly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 20 of the Code provides that a suit can be instituted either at the place of residence of the defendant or in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. According to the plaintiff a part of the cause of action for the suit arose in Pratapgarh where the order of dismissal was served on him. The contention of the applicant-defendant is that no part of cause of action arose in Pratapgarh as the order had been passed finally in Maharashtra and the mere communication of the order could not be sufficient to give rise to a causeof action in Pratapgarh,
(3.) Cause of action as is well-known means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court, but it does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact which is necessary to be proved (Guardian Assurance Co. V/s. Shiva Mangal Singh, 1937 AIR(All) 208), Cooke v. Gill,1873 8 CP 107 , Murti V/s. Bhola Ram,1894 16 ILR(All) 165 , and Chand Kour V/s. Partap Singh,1988 15 IndApp 156 . The plaintiff couid therefore institute the suit in Pratapgarh if the service of dismissal order would constitute a part of the cause of action.;