Soni, J. - (1.) Messrs. Steel and General Mills Company Limited, having its administrative office at 10-A Cavalry Lines, Delhi, brought the present suit for recovery of Rs. 18,750/- against the General Accident and Fire Assurance Corporation Limited Calcutta, later referred to in this judgment as the Assurance Company. The allegations on which the suit was brought were that the plaintiff got insured with the Assurance Company 'inter alia-' the contents of bungalow No. 1 which was the bungalow of the General Manager of the plaintiff Mills, that the Assurance Company had issued policy No. 1-A 183518 in that connection, that on the 27th of May, 1947, the Assurance Company extended the policy in certain respects at the request of the plaintiff so as to cover the belongings of Mrs. P. N. Narang who occupied that bungalow, that on the 9th of July, 1947, Mrs. Narang occupying the bungalow left, as usual, for hills for summer leaving the belongings in the bungalow, that owing to the partition of the country she could not return, to the bungalow at Lahore and it was not possible for her to return on the expiry of the summer season, that with great efforts she was there in the last week of February, 1948, and whatever could be found in the house was recovered and brought to Delhi, On checking it was found that goods worth Rs. 18,750/-had been lost during the disturbances. As the policy of assurance was an All Riot Risks Policy the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, the Assurance Company, was liable to make good the loss and to pay Rs. 18,750/- that the loss was reported to the representative of the assurance company at Delhi on the 14th of April, 1948, and that though the defendant Assurance Company, wrote saying that the loss was receiving their consideration they eventually on the 8th of August 1949, wrote to the plaintiff repudiating the claim. On that the present suit was brought and put in Court on the 8th of November, 1949.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi and the learned trial judge put it in issue. Evidence was recorded on this issue and after the recording of the evidence the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the Delhi Court bad no jurisdiction. He therefore, returned the plaint to the plaintiff to present, it to a Court of proper jurisdiction. The plaintiff has applied.
(3.) The plaintiff relied on Sections 3 and 4 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suite) Act, 1948, being Act XLVII (47) of 1948, for the contention that the suit could be brought by the plaintiff at Delhi. He also relied on the fact that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and that, therefore, the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction. The trial judge repelled born these contentions. In Section 3 of Act XLVII of 1948 a displaced person is defined thus: "Displaced person means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of Civil disturbances or fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan, has been displaced from, or has left, his place of residence in such area after the 1st day of March, 1947, and who has subsequently been residing in India," The contention of the plaintiff is that it is a displaced person. The trial judge held that the word "displaced person" referred to natural persons and not to artificial persons,;