Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THE only point for decision in this case is whether the civil courts at Gurgaon have jurisdiction to try this suit. This question has been decided against the Petitioner and against that decision, he has filed the present revision petition. Krishna Kumar Khurana brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3295.50 against M/s. Nirula Brothers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, in the civil court at Gurgaon. According to the plaintiff, this amount represented his salary, which was due to him from the defendant, who had appointed him as their Adminstrative Officer at Gurgaon where they had their factory also, though their Head office was at New Delhi' The case of the plaintiff was that the civil courts at Gurgaon had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because part of the cause of action accrued to him at that place. The position of the defendant on the other hand, was even though the cause of action, wholly or in part, might have arisen at Gurgaon, but since their Company had no subordinate office at Gurgaon, therefore the civil courts there had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) THE court below has accepted the stand of the plaintiff by means of the impugned order and that has led to the present revision petition by the defendant company. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in these terms - 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 afore said, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I. -Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. Explanation II -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 subordinate office, at such place.
(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that explanation II controls the applicability of the main provisions of Section 20, when the defendant in a suit is a Corporation. If a person wishes to sure a Corporation, then he can do so either at the place where the said Corporation has its sole or principal office in India, because it is there that it will be deemed to carry on its business, or at a place where it has a subordinate office, but in the latter case only if the cause of action had also arisen there. In support of his submission, counsel relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Home Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi v/s. Jagatjit Sugar Mills Company Ltd. : A.I.R 1952 P&H. 142, where it was held: The place of suing is governed by Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, and in regard to incorporated companies it is within the four corners of that section that one have to find the place of suing. According to the statute, an incorporated company can be sued at its principal place of business or if cause of action arises at some other place and it has got a subordinate place of business, at that place also. The mere fact that the former office has been shifted to a new place would not also transfer the right of the plaintiff to bring a suit at that place. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel, the court below was in error in holding that the Gurgaon court had jurisdiction to try the suit only because the cause of act on had arisen to the plaintiff at that place. Unless it was found that the defendant company had a subordinate office also at Gurgaon. the suit could not be instituted there.;