ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S. No.167 of 2001. The first respondent herein filed the suit being O.S. No. 167 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for direction to the second respondent herein to pay the emoluments accrued in favour of one Syed Hussain and for other reliefs. The petitioner herein filed interlocutory application being I.A.No.490 of 2002 under Order XIV, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) praying the trial Court to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. By impugned order, dated 31-7-2002, the trial Court dismissed the application. This civil revision petition is filed against the said order.
2. Syed Hussain was a Senior Goods Driver in South Central Railway, the second respondent herein. He died on 10-8-1999. According to the first respondent, Syed Hussain married her and therefore she alone is entitled for retiral benefits of her husband and hence the suit. In her application, the petitioner pleaded that Syed Hussain was resident of Nagireddipalle Village, Nandalur Mandal of Kadapa District, that the marriage between the petitioner and Syed Hussain was performed at Nagireddipalle Village, where they live together, that Syed Hussain later married the first respondent - plaintiff and that after death of Syed Hussain on 10-8-1999, his obsequies was performed at Nagireddipalle only where he was buried. The petitioner also claimed that after the death of her husband, she shifted to Rajampet, wherein she is residing. She contended that the Court at Tirupati has no jurisdiction as Syed Hussain never lived within the territorial jurisdiction of Tirupati Court. The application was opposed by the first respondent herein. After considering the rival contentions, the trial Court rejected the application on two grounds. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the preliminary issue being mixed question of fact and law, the same cannot be determined unless the evidence is let in. Secondly, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the headquarters of the second respondent, namely, Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway, is situated at Renigunta and therefore the suit at Tirupati is maintainable.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously relies on Section 20 of C.P.C., and submits that Syed Hussain, a native of Nagireddipalle married at Nagireddipalle, that the Headquarters of second respondent is situated at Guntakal and that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tirupati Court. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that as the first respondent is residing in Renigunta and the offices of the Railways are situated at Renigunta, the Tirupati Court has jurisdiction.
4. Part I of C.P.C., (Sections 9 - 25) deal with inter alia 'jurisdiction of the Courts'. Section 15 lays down that 'every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it'. The ordinary jurisdiction of each subordinate Court - District Court, Senior Civil Judge Court and Junior Civil Judge Court; is decided by the Legislature, which, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, is A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1989. When the Courts are constituted for a definite area conferring the pecuniary jurisdiction giving Court the jurisdiction over suits of a particular value or of subject-matter, any suit presented to a Court without pecuniary territorial jurisdiction, any adjudication and decision thereon by such incompetent Court would be void. As per Order IV, Rule 1(2) of C.P.C., every plaint shall have to comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, and unless such compliance is satisfied, the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted. That is the reason why the law provides for rejection of the plaint when it is presented to a Court devoid of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. As per Order VII, Rule 10 CPC, it is competent for the Court where the suit is instituted to return the plaint by making endorsement, to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C., provides for rejection of plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and in such an event, the rejection does not preclude the plaintiff from presenting fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
5. The seminal question, in the above legal background, is regarding general principles of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, to which a plaint has to be presented. Section 16 of C.P.C., deals with the suits, where the subject-matter is either movable property or immovable property. Section 20 of C.P.C., deals with other suits to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. The same reads as under:
Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
20. 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 principle 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.
6. As the first respondent filed the suit for a direction to pay retrial benefits of late Syed Hussain, Section 20 of C.P.C., alone has application. A plain reading of the above provision would show that the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant or defendants voluntarily reside or carry business is the proper Court for presentation of the plaint. The place where the plaintiff resides Or carries on business is not the proper place for instituting the suit in a Court in whose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides. However, if the cause of action wholly or in part arises at a place where the plaintiff resides, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant or defendants do not reside at the place where the plaintiff resides, a suit can be instituted at a place where the plaintiff resides. Section 20 of C.P.C., has three clauses. Clauses (a) and (b) speaks of respondents or defendants whereas clause (c) speaks of cause of action. Though it is not patent, on a true interpretation, it can be concluded that in a situation where Section 20(c) applies, the same overrides Section 20(a) and (b). In such a situation, it is at the option of the plaintiff that a Court gets jurisdiction - be it the place of residence of the plaintiff or the defendant, though at the time of execution of a decree, considerations would be different.
7. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner (defendant) does not carry on any business or resides within the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Therefore, clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of C.P.C., have no application. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff furnished her care of address at Renigunta but plaint is silent whether she is resident of Renigunta or Tirupati. She does not even allege that she is a permanent resident of Renigunta. Therefore, the fact that she gave her care of address at Renigunta for the purpose of filing the suit in Tirupati Court is not relevant. On such consideration, Tirupati Court cannot be conferred with jurisdiction.
8. Whether the first respondent/ plaintiff has any cause of action, wholly or partly, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Tirupati Court At this stage, it is necessary to recapitulate the principal precept and precedent in re 'cause of action'. Avoiding extracting the passages from binding precedents, it is proper to refer to recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 : 2004 AILD 318 (SC). Making a reference to earlier case law, the Supreme Court observed as under (Para 6 of SCC) :
Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is also settled principle that cause of action must be revealed in the pleadings and the pleadings alone should be looked into to know whether cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a Court. One has to look to plaint. The second respondent filed a plaint duly verifying the same at Renigunta. In Paragraph 10 of the plaint, the first respondent (plaintiff) alleged that her marriage with Syed Hussain took place at Madras and both of them lived as husband and wife at various places during the employment of Syed Hussain, that on 24-3-1999 a letter was addressed to Divisional Personnel Officer regarding relationship of the second respondent with Syed Hussain and that on 10-8-1999 when Syed Hussain died when funeral expenses were paid to the plaintiff. She also alleged that she made a claim from Renigunta and continues do die dium (from day to day) at Renigunta. There is no averment that Syed Hussain ever lived at Renigunta or ever worked at that place. No doubt, paragraph 10 of the plaint shows that at the time of presenting plaint to Tirupati Court, she was living at Renigunta. That would not by itself be crucial to come to a conclusion that the cause of action or part of cause of action arose at Renigunta or within the territorial jurisdiction of Tirupati Court. The plaint does not even remotely suggest that Syed Hussain and the plaintiff lived at Renigunta or worked at Renigunta giving a right to claim to retrial benefits.
10. It is not denied before this Court that the Headquarters of the Divisional Office is situated at Guntakal. Indeed, the second defendant has office at Guntakal. Merely because Syed Hussain worked under South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, the same does not lead to an inference that the part of cause of action arose at Renigunta where there are railway offices. Unless and until it is pleaded that Syed Hussain worked and retired at Renigunta, no cause of action or no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen at Renigunta. On this point, the lower Court proceeded on the wrong assumption in coming to the conclusion that the Headquarters of second respondent is located at Renigunta.
11. As observed in the beginning of the judgment, if a decree is passed by the Court without jurisdiction, it would be void and nullity. If Tirupati Court is allowed to proceed with the suit adjudicating and passing judgment, it would be an exercise in futility causing grave prejudice to the parties. Therefore, the Court ought to have decided held on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/first defendant. The impugned order in LA. No. 490 of 2002 is accordingly set aside, and the said application stands allowed.
12. For the above reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint forthwith to the first respondent to be presented to proper Court in accordance with Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. No costs.