* See n. p. 21. † See n. p. 27. See n. p. 27. M. 17. (5) Subject to the limitations aforesaid, all other suits shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arose. (a) the cause of action* (d) arises; or (6) all the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily residef (e) or carry on business‡(f) or personally work for gain(g) or (c) any of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain: provided § See n. p. 27. that either the leave of the Court is givens (h) or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution. Explanation 1.-Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a lodging at another place for See n. p. 27. a temporary purpose only, 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 lodging. Sec. 1 n. (a). **See n. p. 29. Explanation 11-A Corporation or Company shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in¶ British India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.** (?) Illustrations. (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 Benares, B and A make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benares, 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 nonresident defendant objects, the suit cannot be maintained without the leave of the Court. ship business in conjunction with A's son. A agreed to advance the required funds on condition, that the sum advanced should be repaid him within a certain date. No place was fixed for repayment. The money was advanced partly at Serampore and partly in Calcutta, Markby J. for the reasons given above did not discuss the question as to where the cause of action had arisen. Birch J. laid down this. "The ordinary rule is that the obligor is bound to seek the obligee and tender the money due at the place, where the engagement was entered into, or at the residence of the creditor; and failure to fulfil this obligation is a cause of action." In James Hills v. 8. G. Clark, B. L. K, X1V. p. 367 J. H, by contract entered into at Birpur inthe district of N. agreed to supply indigo seed to S. C.; the seed to be paid for on delivery by an order to be sent to J. H. on receipt of seed. J. H. resided at Berhampur in the district of M., and delivery of the seed was to be made in district N. Seed was delivered as agreed, but payment refused. Here on the same principle as in the former case, it was held that payment ought to have been made at plaintiff's residence, and that its refusal constituted the "arising of a sufficient cause of action." The celebrated case under this head is De Souza and Coles Mad. H. C. Rep. III. 384. Mr. Justice Bittleston held, that the words meant the whole cause of action and included every fact essential to the maintenance of action, and that each of these parts is but a part of the cause of action. Mr. Justice Holloway held that, irrespective of the domicile of the defendant, there is a complete forum wherever a place can be indicated to which the right and its infraction can both be referred, because there is a cause of action, and a whole cause of action. All these cases seem to have been governed by by the principle IN JURE NON REMOTA CAUSA SED PROXIMA SPECTATUR and this seems to have guided N.-W. P. Court in the case Premsukh v. Bhiku H. C. R. III. Agra 242 where it was held, that, the cause of action arises, where the facts that immediately cause the right to sue have accrued. With reference to the date from which a cause of action accrues, it was decided in the F. B. Ruling Nobin Chunder Chuckerbutty and Guru Pershad Das B. L. R. F. B. II. P. 1015 that when an ancestor is dispossessed, the cause of action of his heir accrues not at the time, when the ancestor dies and he could sue, but at the time when the ancestor was dispossessed and ought himself to have sued. In Mahi Sahu v. A. J. Forbes ib. 501, it was ruled that where there is a contract for performing certain duties in each of several years, each breach of the contract would be a complete cause of action, and separate damages would be recoverable for each breach. In Hurronath Roy and Mahirullah Mullah. ib. 618 it was ruled that in a bond payable by instalments and containing a provision that, on default of payment of any one instalment, the whole amount should become payable, the cause of action arises from the first default. In Gaur Mohan Chaudhry v. Madan Mohan Chaudhry. B. L. R. Vol. VI. 352, where the right to a turn of worship of an idol for 7 days in a month was in question, it was held that the cause of action did not recur as the turn of worship came round, *Sec. 11 n. (c.) †Sec. 16 n. (c,) 18. 17. n. (e.f.) Sec. 17 n. (g.) See n. p. 29. M. 18. In suits for compensation for* wrong done to perSuits for compensation son ort moveable property, if the for wrongs to person or wrong was done within the local moveables. limits of the jurisdiction of one Court, and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain§ within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the plaintiff may at his option sue in either of the said Courts. (j) Illustrations. (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or ir. Delhi. (b) A. residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi, (c) A, travelling on the line of a Railway Company whose principal office is at Howrah, is upset and injured at Allahabad by negligence imputable to the Company. He may sue the Company either at Howrah or at Allahabad, In the following cases, no cause of action was held to have arisen (1) in Guru Pershad Roy v. Rai Baboo Dhanpat Singh, B. L. R. V. App. 47, where B sued A. for the recovery of money advanced on a bond before the amount secured became due on the ground, that A. had agreed to have the bond registered, but failed to do so. (2) In Rakhal Das Madah v. Madhusudan Madak III, B. L. R. 409, where property had been placed in the hands of M. by way of trust, no cause of action was found until M. had been asked to restore the property and had refused to do so. (3) In Hisamuddin Khan, &c. v. Kha lifa Anwarullah, N.-W. P., 1870, p. 400, where A. sued a Committee appointed under Act XX. of 1863 after they had expressed an opinion upon a will made by A. (appointing a successor and giving directions about the endowed property) that the document was of no effect. The suit brought was to prevent the Committee from illegal interference and to reverse their order respecting the will. (4) In Bengal Coal Co., v. Elgin Cot ton Co., North-Western Provinces, 1870, p. 31, where defendants were asked to obtain information from a railway company as to probable cost of carriage of coal and did so, communicating the result in good faith to the plaintiff, no cause of action was found, although plaintiff had subsequently to pay the railway company a much larger sum than defendant had represented. (5) In Raja Pirthi Sing v. Dya Kishun, N.-W. P., 1873, p. 227. F. B. (Stuart C. J. dissenting.) Two brothers D. and N. mutually agreed, that if either wished to sell or mortgage his share, he should first offer it to the other. N. however executed a bond in favour of R. an outsider, hypothecating his share and stipulating that the debt should only be recoverable from the property hypothecated. Subsequently R. brought a suit on the bond; N. confessed judgment and allowed a decree to pass against the property. D. sued to obtain posses sion on the ground of fraud. Held that the mere hypothecation was not sufficient to give D. a cause of action in the suit as brought by D. (6) In Rani Khajooroonissa v. Mirza Saifoolla Khan, & M. S. K. v. R. K. B. L. R. XV., 306. A husband denying his liability to pay dower has no cause of action until there has been a previous demand for it by his wife; as the option is with the wife to demand it, or not; and to elect her time for demanding it. (7) In Baboo Nishan Sing v. Baboo Jag Deo Sing, B. L. R. IV., app. 97. Held that upon a partition of joint property a coparcener is bound by the incumbrances created by another coparcener in respect of a portion of the property falling to him in partition, and has no cause of action against a mortgagee claiming such incumbrance. A suit was instituted for redemption of mortgage under a mortgage deed before the time specified in the deed for redemption. While the case was being heard, the date for redemption arrived, and the Court granted the claim. Held on appeal, that no cause of action had arisen at institution of suit, and therefore the decision of the Lower Court was erroneous Lila Morji, v. Vasudev M. Ganpat. Bom. H. O. R. XI. 283. See further notes to S. 53. In Ullman v. Justices of the Peace B. L. R. VIII., 265, it was ruled that, where notice of cause of action is required to be given by an Act, no cause of action will afterwards be allowed to be raised, save that *Sec. 16 n. (b.) M. 19. If the suit Suits for immoveable property situate in single districts, but within juris dictions of different Courts, be to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to," immoveable property situate within the limits of a single district, but within the jurisdiction of different Courts the suit may be instituted in the Court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate; provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the †S. 6 n. (m.) suit, the entire claim be cognizablet by such Court. districts. If the immoveable property be situate within the limits Suits for immoveable of different districts, the suit may property situate in different be instituted in any Court, otherwise competent to try it, within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. M. 20. If a suit which may be instituted in more than one Court is instituted in a Court Power to stay proceedings where all defendants within the local limits of whose do not reside within juris- jurisdiction the defendant or all the defendants does not or do not actuS.17. n. (e.g.) ally and voluntarily reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, the defendant or any defendant may, after giving notice in writing to the other parties of his intention to apply to the Court to stay proceedings, apply to the diction. k. Sec. p. 29. Court (k) accordingly; § S. 218. 7. Sec. p. 29. S. s. 146-150. n. Scc. p. 29. Act VII. of 19. and if the Court, after hearing such of the parties as desire to be heard, is satisfied that justice is more likely to be done by the suit being instituted in some other Court, it may stay proceedings either finally or till further order, and make such order as it thinks fit as to the costs§ already incurred by the parties or any of them. In such case, if the plaintiff so requires, the Court shall return the plaint with an endorsement thereon of the order staying proceedings. (1) (m) made. Every such application shall be made (n) at the earliest Application when to be possible opportunity, and in all cases before the issues are settled; and any defendant not so applying shall be deemed to have acquiesced in the institution of the suit. where suit instituted in M. 21. Wherethe Court, under section 20, stays proceedRemission of Court fee ings, and the plaintiff re-institutes his suit in another Court, the plaint shall not be chargeable¶ with any 1870's. 7. 11. court fee; provided that the proper fee has been levied on the institution of the suit in the former Court, and that the plaint has been returned by such Court. 22. Where a suit may be instituted in more Courts than one, and such Courts are subordinates to the same appellate Court, any defendant, after giving notice in writing to the other party of **Act VII. 1870, Sch.II.1, a. b. d. Procedure where Courts tuted are subordinate to the |