Law Maker

PART I SUITS IN GENERAL · PLACE OF SUING

Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

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 works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

1* * * * *

2[Explanation].—A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in 3[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 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.

Footnotes in the official text

  1. 1.Explanation 1 omitted by Act 104 of 1976, s. 7 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
  2. 2.Subs. by s. 7, ibid., for “Explanation II” (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
  3. 3.Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3, for “the States” (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).

Questions on this section

4 questions in 14 of our papers cite Section 20. Try these from the free papers:

  1. 1. A, residing at Delhi, makes a contract at Hyderabad with B, residing at Chennai, for the sale of goods to be delivered at Hyderabad, with the price payable at Hyderabad. B fails to pay. There is no clause on jurisdiction. Under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, A may sue B at:

  2. 2. Consider the following statements on Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as explained by the Supreme Court in K. Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (16 September 2026): 1. A claimant may file the claim before the Tribunal within whose limits the claimant resides or carries on business. 2. The place where the defendant carries on business is also a permitted forum, as under Section 20 CPC. 3. The word 'defendant' in Section 166(2) does not refer to the insurer. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  3. 3. Consider the following statements regarding the place of suing under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 1. A suit may be instituted where the cause of action arises only if the whole of the cause of action arises within that Court's local limits. 2. Where it is alleged to be uncertain within which of two Courts' local limits an immovable property is situate, either Court, if satisfied that there is ground for the uncertainty, may record a statement to that effect and proceed with the suit. 3. Where there are several defendants, a suit may be instituted where any one of them resides, provided the leave of the Court is given or the defendants who do not reside there acquiesce. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Practise questions on Civil Procedure Code