Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 20, 30, O. VII, R. 2

  (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----   ---S.12‑‑‑Civil procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 20 & O. VII, R. 2‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of contract and recovery of amount‑--Territorial Jurisdiction of Court. determination of‑‑Interpretation of S.30, C. P. C. ‑‑-plaintiff had asserted that Court at was competent to try suit filed by him as agreement between the parries was executed at L and goods were also delivered from there‑Suit was resisted by defendant alleging that contract between the parties with regard to construction of motorway was from P to I was executed at and main office of defendant being also at I Court at L had no jurisdiction to try the suit Plaintiff had himself stated in the plaint that defendant who had Its head office abroad, presently resided at I‑---Suit according to S.20, C. P. C. could be instituted at place where defendant actually and voluntarily resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain at the time of fling suit.‑Word 'resides' also referred to natural persons because said word denoted living of person, where he was dwelling, sleeping and eating and, it would be taken to refer to natural person and not to legal entity such as Government, Companies or Firms---Expression "carries on business" as used in S. 20, C. P. C. would apply to commercial concern which had its principal office at one place and had branches at various places doing business for profit‑‑‑Words "carries on business" neither would apply to natural person nor to the Government‑‑‑Word 'works' in S.2, C. P. C. had been qualified with word `gain' and it also referred to those persons who on their free‑will worked to earn gain and it would exclude those who worked to promote interest of others and were not entitled to share return of their labour‑‑‑No cause of action or any part of it had been alleged in plaint by plaintiff which could give jurisdiction to Civil Court at L‑‑‑Civil Court at L which had taken cognizance of the case had misinterpreted provisions of S. 20; C. P. C. and had committed illegality in, observing that it had the…