CPC, 1908 · Part I · Place of Suing
Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises
The residual rule — for every suit not caught by §§16–19.
The bare Act
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 aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Explanation.—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.
(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen, or in Delhi, where B carries on business.
(b) A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
How to read Section 20
§20 is the catch-all forum rule. “Subject to the limitations aforesaid” means it applies only to suits not already governed by §§16–19 (and still subject to grade & value, §§6, 15).
Such a suit may be filed where (a) the defendant resides/works, (b) any one of several defendants resides/works (with a condition), or (c) the cause of action arises — wholly or in part.
Where more than one ground fits, the plaintiff chooses the most convenient court — subject to the leave/acquiescence rule in (b).
Section 20, phrase by phrase
The three grounds
Where the defendant — or each defendant, if several — at the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Where any of the multiple defendants resides / works / does business — but only if the Court’s leave is given, or the other (non-resident) defendants acquiesce.
Condition: leave of Court OR acquiescence
Where the cause of action — the bundle of facts the plaintiff must prove — wholly or in part arises. Even a part arising there is enough.
Key phrases decoded
A genuine, chosen residence — not a casual, temporary or forced stay. The defendant must really live there of his own will.
Where the defendant runs a trade or business. For a company, the Explanation fixes this (see below).
Where the person physically works for a livelihood — e.g. an employee at his place of employment.
The set of material facts giving the right to sue. If even part of it occurs in a court’s limits, that court has jurisdiction.
The Explanation — where a company carries on business
A corporation is always deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India — you can sue it there.
Also deemed to carry on business at a branch office — but only in respect of a cause of action arising at that place.
So a company can be sued at its head office for anything, but at a branch only for matters that arose at that branch.
The illustrations, mapped
Illustration (a) — sale of goods
B buys A’s goods through his agent in Calcutta and A delivers there. So A may sue B in Calcutta (cause of action) or Delhi (B’s business) — the plaintiff’s choice.
Illustration (b) — joint promissory note
A resides at Simla — the plaintiff, so not a forum option.
A may sue at Benaras freely (cause of action); or at Calcutta/Delhi where a defendant resides — but if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court (clause (b)).
Where §20 sits
Sue where the property lies.
Sue where the wrong was done or the defendant is.
Defendant resides / works, or cause of action arises.
The maxim behind it
Actor sequitur forum rei
“The plaintiff follows the forum of the defendant.”
Why it fits §20: the default rule lets the plaintiff sue where the defendant resides / works — the plaintiff goes to the defendant’s forum.
Proviso, Explanation & Illustrations — each on its own tab
⚖️ Suing where only ONE of several defendants is — the gate
Several defendants
You want to sue where only one of them resides / works / carries on business (clause b).
The gate — one of two
Leave of the Court is given, OR the other (non-resident) defendants acquiesce.
Suit may proceed
Only then can the suit go on in that Court against all.
🏢 Where a corporation is “deemed to carry on business”
A corporation
Company / body corporate as a defendant.
Principal office
Deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India — always suable here.
Branch office
Also at a subordinate office — but only if the cause of action arose at that place.
📦 Illustration (a) — goods sold; sue at cause-of-action OR business
Calcutta
The cause of action arose here — B’s agent bought, and A delivered, the goods in Calcutta.
Delhi
Where B carries on business.
📝 Illustration (b) — joint note; three forums, with a catch
Benaras
Cause of action arose — B & C made and delivered the note here. Sue both here, no catch.
Calcutta
Where B resides.
Delhi
Where C resides.
Connected rules & sections
“Subject to the limitations aforesaid” keeps the grade & value rules of §§6, 15 in play.
§20 applies only to suits these do not cover — it is expressly residual.
The bundle of material facts the plaintiff must prove to succeed — clause (c) turns on where it arises.
A wrong choice of place must be taken early + show failure of justice.
The “more than one defendant” situation in (a)/(b) links to the joinder rules.
Head office always; branch office only for a cause of action arising there.
Because §20 offers several forums, a defendant may seek transfer.
The plaint must plead the facts showing the chosen court’s jurisdiction under §20.