1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, C.P.C., and the short point that I have got to decide in this case is whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council No leave under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act had been taken prior to the institution of this suit and it is, therefore, contended on behalf of the Secretary of State that inasmuch as the cause of action arose wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, this suit against the Secretary of State is not maintainable, having regard to the decisions of this Court in Doya Narain Tewary v. Secretary of State 114 C. 256 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 170 and Rodricks v. Secretary of State 21 Ind. Cas. 1 : 40 C. 308.
2. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that the Secretary of State carries on business, i.e., conducts the management of the Eastern Bengal Railway in the Head Office thereof which is situate at Kaila Ghat Street within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and that, therefore, the present suit is maintainable and no leave under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was necessary. It is further contended that the error, if any, made by the Small Causes Court was a mere error of law and that this Court will not interfere under Section 115, C.P.C., with the decision of the Small Causes Court.
3. In my view this matter is concluded by authority, namely, that a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council can only be brought in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises. There can be no doubt that in this case the cause of action had arisen wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and [inasmuch as no leave had been taken under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, the present suit was not maintainable. The Small Causes Court cannot, in my opinion, give jurisdiction by taking on entirely wrong view of the law and it is a mistake to suggest that the error in this case was a mere error of law. The correct view is that the Small Causes Court in the circumstances which appear on the record exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The order, therefore, of the Small Causes Court is set aside and the present application must be allowed with costs.
Comments