- Bench: Tulzapurkar, Bombay High Court
- Appellant: Harumal D. Varma
- Respondent: Khanchand Pokardas
- Citation: (1964) 66 BOMLR 829, 1965 CriLJ 75
Issue:
This revisional application raises a neat question of jurisdiction. Whether the Poona Court can entertain a pauper suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution.
Facts:
1. Sometime prior to 4th February 1962 the Defendant in Bombay entrusted certain diamonds of the value of Rs. 15,000/- to one Jairamdas, the brother of the Plaintiff for the purpose of sale on commission.
2. While Jairamdas was travelling from Bombay to Poona his pocket was picked.
3. The Defendant filed a Criminal complaint against Jairamdas and the Plaintiff in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate at Esplanade, Bombay, charging them with the offences of criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and abetment.
4. This criminal complaint was filed by the Defendant on 14th February 1962 and after obtaining the process from the criminal court in that behalf, the Defendant effected service of the summons upon the Plaintiff and his brother at Poona.
5. In between a compromise was arrived where under, Jairam and the Plaintiff agreed to pay back Rs.15, 000/- to the Defendant in certain instalments notwithstanding the fact that the diamonds had been stolen during Jairamdas journey from Bombay to Poona.
6. As a result of the compromise the criminal complaint was dismissed and both the plaintiffs as well as his brother were discharged.
7. But while discharging them the criminal Court in its judgment observed as follows: "There is no iota of evidence to connect accused No. 2 (Plaintiff) with this offence. In my opinion Accused No. 2 (Plaintiff) is wrongly prosecuted in this case."
8. But soon after, on 15th April 1963 the plaintiff filed a pauper suit against the Defendant claiming Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution by presenting Miscellaneous Application to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona.
9. The pauper petition was in due course transferred to the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division of Poona.
10. After notice to show cause was issued and served upon the Defendant, the Defendant raised several contentions.
Appellant Contention
The Plaintiff urged that inasmuch as the process of the criminal Court had been served upon him at Poona on 26th October 1962, a part of the cause of action arose in Poona and therefore the Poona Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Respondent Contention
It was contended by the Defendant that the Poona Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court contended that the mere fact that the summons in the criminal case was served upon the plaintiff at a particular place would not confer jurisdiction upon the Court of the place where such service was affected. In this view of the matter, the court found it unnecessary to decide the question as to whether the Poona Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis that part of the cause of action arose in Poona inasmuch as the plaintiff alleged that he suffered part of the damages. The rule in the revisional application was thus discharged
Join Mr. Virmani for his 24-Hours Live Course on CPC starting from 23rd August.
Flat 66 % discount till 18th August.
Use the following link to join the class - https://lnkd.in/d-CM4uE
Study material and recordings shall be given to all the participants along with the certificates
