Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable

 

Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable

·        This Section 19 of CPC clarifies the place of institution of suits in case the wrong is alleged to be done by the defendant to as to person or movable property of the plaintiff and the intends to take compensation for that wrong from the defendant.

·        Section 19 deals with a situation wherein the cause of action arises at one place and the defendant resides or carries on business or personally work for gain at another place.

·        The cause of action arises at the place where the wrong is done.

·        Section 19 provides that in such cases, two courts shall be competent to entertain and try the suit for compensation:

a. the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the wrong is done.

b. the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

·        This section also grants option to the plaintiff to move any one of these two courts having jurisdiction.

According to Section 19 of CPC:

·        Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property,

·        If the wrong was done within the jurisdiction of one court,

·        And the defendant

i. resides, or

ii. Carries on business; or

iii. Personally works for gain

within the jurisdiction of another court,

·        then the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.  

Illustration attached to Section 19

a. A residing in Delhi beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

b. A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

 

WRONG

·        The word “Wrong” employed in this section refers to actionable wrong. It is a tort or infringement of legal rights. But, the section does not apply to all types of actionable wrongs. It applies only to those actionable wrongs that affect the person or movable property.

·        If any wrong is committed to the immovable property such as trespass or nuisance or infringement of easement, then the same will fall under Section 16(e) and not under Section 19 of the code.

 

Movable Property

·        Section 19 applies to a suit where a wrong has been done to movable property and the value of the property has diminished and the plaintiff claims compensation for the damage.

·        Where the movable property (i.e. ornaments) has been merely taken away and detained by the defendant, then Section 19 does not apply.

·        The suit for its return would be governed by Section 20(c).

·        The reason is very clear from the bare language of Section 19, that Section 19 has no application to a suit for compensation for wrongful detention of movable property, but applies to suits based on diminution of value.

 

Suits against Government 

·        The word “resides” refers only to the natural persons.

·        The words “carries on business” refers to commercial business.

·        Therefore Section 19 does not apply to suits against the Government for damages for a tort committed by the Government.

·        The suits against the Government lie in the court where the tort is committed. [Gokaldas Melaram vs. Baldev Das AIR 1961 Mys 188].

 

Important Points in Reference to Section 19

·        Sometimes the wrong done to the person or movable property may not be confined to a single act.

·        It may involve a series of acts and it may not be possible to specifically state the place where such wrong was committed.

·        As it is not possible to tell the place where the wrong was committed so in such an event, the suit claiming compensation may be instituted in a court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, the wrongdoer resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

·        It may also happen that a wrongful act is done at one place but the resultant damage is caused at another place. In this case also, it is open to the plaintiff to institute a suit either at the place where the wrongful act is done or at the place where the resultant damage is caused.