S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is respondent no. 1 in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by opposite party no. 1 has challenged in this petition the decision of the trial court and the revisional court on the preliminary issue relating to the question of jurisdiction.
(2.) THE petitioner was married with opposite party no. 1 on 1st June, 1981 at village Ludiyawan, pargana and tahsil Musafir khana, district Sultanpur. THE petitioner came to the house of opposite party no. 2 in village Jatua Tappa Bijhwan, pargana, tahsil and district Rae Bareli. THE next day, i.e. on 2nd June, 1981 petitioner came back and did not thereafter go to her husband's house to perform marital obligations. THE opposite party no. 1 then filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of Munsif, Rae Bareli in which the petitioner was impleaded as defendant no. 1 and her brothers, Mohammad Iqbal Khan and Mohammad Irshad Khan, were impleaded as defendants nos. 2 and 3. It was pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that defendants nos. 2 and 3 reside in Rae Bareli and carry on their transport business in that city. This is not denied in the written statement. It has further been pleaded in paras 8 and 9 of the plaint as under :- "8. That the plaintiff has tried his level best to take the defendant no. 1 to his house from the house of defendants nos. 2 and 3 but defendants nos. 2 and 3 prevented the plaintiff without any reason, to take defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 is under the influence and guidance of defendants nos. 2 and 3, and, therefore, defendant no. 1 deserted the plaintiff and lives at her brothers place, and without any lawful excuse refused to come to the plaintiff's house. 9. That defendants nos. 2 and 3 are real brothers of defendant no. 1. Defendants nos. 2 and 3 had called defendant no. 1 to their house on 2nd June, 1981. Since then defendants nos. 2 and 3 continuously preventing defendant no. 1 from coming to the plaintiff's house. Defendant no. 1 also refuses to come to the plaintiff's house, hence the suit." Petitioner and opposite parties 2 and 3 filed a written statement in which they, inter alia, pleaded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as defendant no. 2 (petitioner) was permanently residing at her house in district Sultan-pur. The trial court framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and decided it in favour of the plaintiff. This finding has been upheld by the District Judge, Rae Bareli. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts at Rae Bareli and that the Courts at Rae Bareli had the jurisdiction to try the suit. It has been pointed out that the petitioner, who is defendant no. 1 in the suit has been permanently residing at Sultanpur where the marriage was also performed and, therefore, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights could have been filed only at Sultanpur.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under :- " 20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in 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 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. An analysis of the provisions of Section 20 quoted above would show that suit can be filed (i) at the place where the defendant lives or carries on business or works for gain ; (ii) where there are several defendants living or carrying on business or working for gain at different places, the suit can be filed at the place of any of the defendant provided leave of the Court is obtained for the institution of the suit or other defendants acquiesces in such institution and (iii) at the place where the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen. The word "cause of action" came to be considered by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies, AIR 1960 SC 1309. The Supreme Court referred to the earlier Privy Council decision and quoted with approval the following observations :- " Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his rights to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every price of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved." Fry L. J. agreed and said : " Every thing which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, must be part of the cause of action." To the same effect are the observations of Lopes L. J. in Mst. Chand Kour v. Partab Singh, 15 Ind. App 156. Lord Watson observed: " Now the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour." ;