Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul, held that the wrong done under Section 19 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) includes both the act and its effects.

What was the Background of Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul Case?

• The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Nisamol who passed away on 2^nd June 2001 in New Delhi at the residences of defendants 1 and 2.
• The deceased Nisamol was the only earning member of the family.
• The defendants took Nisamol to Delhi in 2000 to work as a babysitter.
• In 2001, the defendant informed the plaintiff that Nisamol died due to blood cancer.
• The plaintiff filed a suit for compensation shattered by the death of her daughter.
• At Sub-Court, Nedumangad, a suit was instituted under Section 19 of CPC for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest from the defendants.
• The learned Sub Judge concluded that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and so the plaint was returned.
• Aggrieved by this order, an appeal is filed before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court stated that the Sub-Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Basant Balaji observed that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, as per the broader interpretation of wrong done under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified in establishing the jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided.
• The Court also held that in a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain claim of compensation. The wrong done cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense but has to be understood in the broader amplitude.
• The Court also relied upon the case of Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2009) for the purpose of interpreting the meaning of the term wrong occurring in Section 19 of CPC.
  • In this case, the Kerala High Court held that the wrong done includes the effect of the act and the resultant damage. If the act does not lead to any consequence or damage, such act may not be actionable. Therefore, the phrase wrong done occurring in Section 19 of CPC should be understood as including the effect of the act.

What is Section 19 of CPC?

• Section 19 of CPC deals with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. It states that -
  • Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local 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 suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
    Illustrations:
    (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.
• Section 19 applies only to actionable wrong to the person or to the movable property.
• The principle of this section is not applicable where the suit is against the government.