# '982 STATE OF BIHAR v. ORIENTAL COAL CO. LTD

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 982
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 307 of 1970
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde An)) A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/982-state-of-bihar-v-oriental-coal-co-ltd-5496
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Assessment of sales tax-Assessee's place of
:business outside State-Payment of sales tax outside State-Assessmenl
set aside by appellate authority-Sui~ for refund-Filed outside State-If
cause of action or part of cause of action arose outside State.
The registered office of the respondent company was at Calcutta. The
respondent company was a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax
Act, 1947.
It issuad cheques to the appellant-State for the amounts due
towards sales tax for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 on a Calcutta Bank and the cheques were encashed there.
After paying the tax
it appealed and the appellate authority heard the appeals at Calcutta and
set aside the orders of assessment.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an
application before the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Dhanbad, in Bihar,
for refund of the lax paid by it. Since the request was not complied with.
a suit was filed on the original side of the High Court of Calcutta. The
respondent urged that a part of the cause of action arose at Calcutta.
because, (I) the payments were macle at Calcutta under a
bona fide
mistake of law that it was liable to pay sales tax; (2) its appeals were
heard in Calcutta and the orders of the appellate authonty were also
.received at Calcutta; and (3) its registered office was situate in Calcutta
.and it was the duty of the debtor to find the creditor.
The trial Judge held that the High Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction
but on merits came to the conclusion that the respondent was not oo-
~illed to any relief. The Division Bench, on appeal, held that the respondent was entitled to the refund.
Allowing the appeal to this Court.
A
B
c
D
E
HELD: (I) In view of Sales-tax Continuance Order, 1950 made by
the President in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Art. 286(2)
F
of the Constitution as the article then stood and s. 2 of the Sales Tax
Laws Validation Act, 1956, the assessments for the periods from April 1.
1950 to March 31, 1951 and from April I, 1951 to March 31, 1953 respectively were valid.
Therefore, the paym1=nts were not made under a
ho11a fide mistake of law. (987 C-H: 988 A-DJ
Sundaramier v. State of A.P. [1958] I S.C.R. 422, followed.
G
(2) But the appellate authority had held that the asoessments were
not valid.
This order of the appellate authority is not affected by s. 2
of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, because that ~ection only validate~
assessments a1ready made, 'notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
.nj a court', but not, 'notwithstanding an order made by an authdrity under
the Sales Tax Act'.
The validity of the order made by the appellate
authority could not also be questioned by the appellant in a civil court in
·H
view of s. 23 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
Therefore, as the assessment<
made were set" aside by the appellate authority, the respondent was entitled
cto the refund. [988 D--H]
A
B
STAIE OF BIHAR v. ORIENTAL COAL co. LID. (Hegde, I.) 983
(3) But the High Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction. The fact
that the plaintiff based his claim on ,three alternative grounds, for one of
which alone (which however was not a tenable plea) a part of ihe cause
of action can at best be said to have arisen in Calcutta, but not for others
cannot confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta lligh Court to try the suit on
basis of grol!nds in respect of which no part of the cause of action arose
in Calcutta. The cause of action. within the contemplation of law is that
which relates to a tenable plea. [990 D]
(a) Since it could not be said that the payments were made under any
mistaken impression of the law, the fact that the cheques issued by the
respondent were encashed at Calcutta did not afford any cause of action
for filing the suit in Calcutta. [989 CJ
(b) (i) Assuming that the encashment of the cheques in Calcutta gave
rise to a cause of action at Calcutta for a claim based on the ground that
C
the payments were made on mistaken impression of law, that circumstance
could n

## Text

'982
STATE OF BIHAR
v.
ORIENTAL COAL CO. LTD.
October 6, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE AN)) A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Assessment of sales tax-Assessee's place of
:business outside State-Payment of sales tax outside State-Assessmenl
set aside by appellate authority-Sui~ for refund-Filed outside State-If
cause of action or part of cause of action arose outside State.
The registered office of the respondent company was at Calcutta. The
respondent company was a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax
Act, 1947.
It issuad cheques to the appellant-State for the amounts due
towards sales tax for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 on a Calcutta Bank and the cheques were encashed there.
After paying the tax
it appealed and the appellate authority heard the appeals at Calcutta and
set aside the orders of assessment.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an
application before the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Dhanbad, in Bihar,
for refund of the lax paid by it. Since the request was not complied with.
a suit was filed on the original side of the High Court of Calcutta. The
respondent urged that a part of the cause of action arose at Calcutta.
because, (I) the payments were macle at Calcutta under a
bona fide
mistake of law that it was liable to pay sales tax; (2) its appeals were
heard in Calcutta and the orders of the appellate authonty were also
.received at Calcutta; and (3) its registered office was situate in Calcutta
.and it was the duty of the debtor to find the creditor.
The trial Judge held that the High Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction
but on merits came to the conclusion that the respondent was not oo-
~illed to any relief. The Division Bench, on appeal, held that the respondent was entitled to the refund.
Allowing the appeal to this Court.
A
B
c
D
E
HELD: (I) In view of Sales-tax Continuance Order, 1950 made by
the President in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Art. 286(2)
F
of the Constitution as the article then stood and s. 2 of the Sales Tax
Laws Validation Act, 1956, the assessments for the periods from April 1.
1950 to March 31, 1951 and from April I, 1951 to March 31, 1953 respectively were valid.
Therefore, the paym1=nts were not made under a
ho11a fide mistake of law. (987 C-H: 988 A-DJ
Sundaramier v. State of A.P. [1958] I S.C.R. 422, followed.
G
(2) But the appellate authority had held that the asoessments were
not valid.
This order of the appellate authority is not affected by s. 2
of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, because that ~ection only validate~
assessments a1ready made, 'notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
.nj a court', but not, 'notwithstanding an order made by an authdrity under
the Sales Tax Act'.
The validity of the order made by the appellate
authority could not also be questioned by the appellant in a civil court in
·H
view of s. 23 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
Therefore, as the assessment<
made were set" aside by the appellate authority, the respondent was entitled
cto the refund. [988 D--H]
A
B
STAIE OF BIHAR v. ORIENTAL COAL co. LID. (Hegde, I.) 983
(3) But the High Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction. The fact
that the plaintiff based his claim on ,three alternative grounds, for one of
which alone (which however was not a tenable plea) a part of ihe cause
of action can at best be said to have arisen in Calcutta, but not for others
cannot confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta lligh Court to try the suit on
basis of grol!nds in respect of which no part of the cause of action arose
in Calcutta. The cause of action. within the contemplation of law is that
which relates to a tenable plea. [990 D]
(a) Since it could not be said that the payments were made under any
mistaken impression of the law, the fact that the cheques issued by the
respondent were encashed at Calcutta did not afford any cause of action
for filing the suit in Calcutta. [989 CJ
(b) (i) Assuming that the encashment of the cheques in Calcutta gave
rise to a cause of action at Calcutta for a claim based on the ground that
C
the payments were made on mistaken impression of law, that circumstance
could not be said to give rise to a cause of action for the suit on the
ground that the respondent was entitled to the refund of the amounts paid
because of the order of the appellate authority. [989 DJ
D
(ii) In view of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, an application for
refund could have been made only to the Commissionet whose office was
situate in Bihar. The refund could have been made only in accordancewith those rules, and as per the rules, the amount could be refunded to
a dealer only through one of the State-Government treasuries.
Hence,
the entire cause of action in respect. of the claim for refund on the basis
of the appellate authority's order arose only within the State of Bihar,
and no part of that cause of action arose outside Bihar. [990 A-CJ
(c) For the same reasons no part of the cause of acti!)n for claiming
E
the amount on the basis of the doctrine that the debtor must seek his
creditor could be said to have arisen outside Bihar. [990 CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
307 of
1970.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 10, 1964
F of the Calcutta High';Court in Appl!'a! from Original Decree No.
136 of 1960.
G
H
D. P. Singh, V. I. Francis, S. C. Agrawal and Naraya11(1 Nettar.
for the appellant.
S. T. Desai, Bhuvanesh Kumari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C.
Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde,
J.
The
respondent original
plaintiff
(which
will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff)
i~ a company
having its registered office at Calcutta.
It was
a registered
dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 194 7 (in brief the Act).
On or about December 14, 1953, the plaintiff issued a cheque to
the defendant-appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- drawn on the
Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd., Calcutta towards the sales
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] I S.C.R.
tax due from it for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53.
That cheque was sent to Calcutta for encashment and encashed
at that place.
On September 25, 1954, the Assistant Superintendent of Sales-tax passed assessment orders in respect of the years
~entioned earlier.
According to those orders, the plaintiff was
ltable t6 pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 2803 /2/- in respect of
the year 1950-51; Rs.
3670/5/-
for the year 1951-52;
Rs. 4623/6/-
for the year 1952-53, thus
a
total
of
Rs. 11,096/ 13 /-.
As seen earlier, it had already paid a sum of
Rs. 10.000/- earlier.
On July 23, 1955, it paid the balance af
Rs. 1096/13/-; this again by a cheque on the bank mentioned
earlier.
This was also encashed at Calcutta.
Aggrieved by the assessment orders made by the assessing
authority, the plaintiff went up in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chhotanagpur Division,
Bihar.
Those
appeals were heard by the appellate authority at Calcutta. The
appellate authority by its order of September 24, 1955 allowed
A
B
c
the appeals and set aside the orders of assessment.
Before that
D
order was made, this Court had ruled in The Bengal Immunity
Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and ors. (1) that until Parliament by
law made in exercise of the powers vested in it by clause (2) of
Art. 286 provides otherwise, no State can impose or authorise the
imposition of any tax on sales or purchases of goods when such
sales or purchases take place in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce.
On the basis of that conclusion this Court held that
E
the charging section of the Act read with the relevant definitions
cannot operate to tax inter-State sales or purchases and a5 the
Parliament has not otherwise provided, the Act, in so far as it
purports to tax sales or purchases that take place in the course of
inter-State trade or commerce, is unconstautional, illegal and
void.
Evidently that decision was brought to the notice of the
F
appellate authority at the hearing of the appeals and that authority purported to act on the basis of that decision.
The appeals
in question were allowed with these observations :
"These three appeals are directed against assessment orders for the years
1950-51,
1951-52
and
1952-53.
The only point pressed before me is that since this
is a case ·Of non-resident dealers, there should have been
no assessment. The lower Court records show that the
workshop of the plaintiff is situate in Barakar which is
outside Bihar. From here he supplies goods to collieries in Bihar. In other words, he is a non-resident
(1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 603.
G
H
•
{
A
ll
c
•
STATE OF BIHAR v. ORIENTAL COAL co. LT!}. (Hegde, J.) ~J85
dealer and so, according to
the latest
decision
of
Supreme Court, he cannot be assessed to pay any 1ax
in Bihar.
These appeals are accordingly allowed in full."
Sd/- M. Ahmad,
24-9-1955,
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax."
lt is rather difficult to understand this order.
But before the
High Court Counsel for both the parties agreed that the decision
referred to in the order is the decision in the Bengal lmm11nity'.1·
case(1 ).
On October 12, 1955, the plain!Iff filed an application before
the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Dhanbad for refund of the tax
paid by him.
This claim was made on the basis of the appellate
order.
On January 30, 1956,
Sales
Tax
Laws
Validation
0
Ordinance (No. 3 of 1956) was issued which was followed up
by Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956.
The scope of this Act
was considered by this Court in M. P. V. Sundararamier & Co.
v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (').
Therein this Court
by majority held that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act. 1 956
is in substance one lifting the ban on taxation of inter-State sales
and is within the authority conferred on Parliament under Art.
E
286(2) and further that under that provision it was competent to
Parliament to enact a Jaw with retrospective operation.
Therein
this Court further held that s. 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation
Act validates not only levies already coll,ected but also authorised
the imposition of tax on sales falling within the explanation which
had taken place within the period specified in. s. 2.
It was also
F
held that ihe Act was .not a temporary one though its operation is
limited to sales taking place within a specified period.
Evidently
because of the Sales-tax Laws Validation Ordinance and the Sales
Tax Laws Validation Act, the Superintendent of Sales
Tax.
Dhanbad did not comply with the demands made by the plaintiff.
Thereafter the plaintiff issued to the defendant a notice on June
G
7, 1958 calling upon the defendant to refund the amount paid by
it with interest.
The defendant ignored that demand.
Then the
plaintiff filed 'a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High
Court claiming a sum of Rs. 13,176/69 P.
with interest and
costs.
In the plaint the plaintiff put forward
three different
grounds as affording him a cause of action to institute the suit on
the original side' of the High Court.
They are : ( 1) that the. pay,
H
ments in question were made by it under a bona fide mistake of
law namely that it was liable to pay sales tax to the defendant
(!) [1955] 2 S.C'.R. 603
(2) {1958] S.C.R. 1422.
I l-L119SuoC!/72
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972) 1 S.C.R.
during the periods in question; hence it has a right to get back
that amount and as the cheques in question were encashed at
Calcutta, a part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta. (2) its
appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax were heard
in Calcutta and the order of the appellate authority was received
at Calcutta, therefore, a part of the cause of action on that basis
also arose in Calcutta and ( 3) its Registered Office is situate in
Calcutta.
It is the duty of the debtor to find out the creditor and
pay the debt.
Hence it was open to the plaintiff to sue the defendant in Calcutta.
The. defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim.
It contended
(I) that in view of s. 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act,
the impugned levy and collection must be considered as valid,
therefore no question of reimbursement arose and ( 2) the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no
part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta.
The suit was heard by Ray J. (at present a judge of this
Court) on the original side·of the High Court. The learned judge
came to the conclusion that a part of the cause of action for the
suit did arise in Calcutta for two reasons viz. ( 1 ) the cheques
issued by the plaintiff were encashed at Calcutta and (2) under
the circumstances of the case the State of Bihar must be held to
be the debtor and the plaintiff its creditor; hence it was the duty
of the debtor to find out its creditor and pay the debt to the
creditor at Calcutta.
But on merits, the learned single judge held
against the plaintiff.
He came to the conclusion that in view of
~. 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, the levy and collection
must be held to be valid despite the order of the appellate authorrity.
Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiff took up the matter in
appeal to a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the
appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Bachawat
J. (who later became a judge of this Court)
and Arnn K.
Mukherjee J.
The learned judges of the Division Bench allowed
the appeal in full.
On the question whether any part of cause of
action arose in Calcutta, differing from the vie\Y taken by Ray J.
they held that the doctrine that the debtor must find out his creditor and pay the debt did not apply to the facts of this case because
of the ru.les framed under the Act under which the refund claimed
can only be made inside Bihar.
But all the same the
learned
judges came to the conclusion that as the cheques issued by the
plaintiff were encashed at Calcutta, part of cause of action must
be held to have arisen in Calcutta; therefore, the Calcutta High
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
On merits the learned judges came to the conclusion that whatever might be the
A
s
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF BIHAR v. ORIENT.A.I. COAL co. LTD. (Hegde, J.) 987
effect of the provisions of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, in
view of the appellate authority's order allowing the appeals of the
plaintiff, whether that order was right or wrong, the defendant
was bound to refund that amount.
According to the Division
Bench, the order of the appellate authority became final as it had
not been appealed against nor altered in any manner.
It held
that the provisions of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act did not
override the decision of the appellate authority.
Let us first take up the question of the validity of the assessments as originally made.
This question has to be examined
under two different heads namely the validity of the assessment
for the period from Aprill, 1950 to March 31, 1951 and the
validity of the assessments for the remaining two years.
So far
as the assessment for the first period is concerned, the same was
not touched by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act.
Section 2
of that Act which validates the assessment already made reads :
"Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of
any Court, no law of a State imposing, or authorising
the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of any
goods where such sale or purchase took place in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce during
the
period between the lst day of April 1951 and the 6th
day of September 1955 shall be .deemed to be invalid
or ever to have been invalid merely by reason of the ·
fact that such sale or purchase took place in the course
of inter-State trade or commerce; and all such taxes
levied or collected or purporting to have been levied
or collected during the aforesaid period shall be deemed
always to have been validly levied or collected in
accordance with law."
It is clear that this provision only deals with taxes levied or
collected or purporting to have been Irvied or collected during
the,period commencing April I, 1951 till September 6,
1955.
Hence this section does not take in the assessment for the year
1950-51.
The question of the validity of that assessment has to
be separately considered without reference to the Sales Tax Laws
Validation Act.
It is seen that' the levy and collection of tax
relating to that period is governed by the Sales Tax Continuance .
Order 1 ~50 made by the President in exercise of his powers under
the proviso to cl. (2). of Art. 286 of the Constitution of India as
that Article stood then.
In view of that order, it cannot be said
that the assessment made for the year 1950-51 is violative of
Art. 286.
The validity of the above referred order has not been
challenged b<;fore us.
Hence our conclusion is that the
as~ess
ment in respect of the year 1950-51 was validly made.
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'/2] 1
S.C.R
Now coming to the validity of the assessments made for the
second peri.od, t~e same is fully covered by the Validating provisions contamed m s. 2 of the Sales Tax Laws
Validation Act.
This section has been given retorspective effect as from April L
1.95 l. Therefore we have to proceed on the basis of the fiction
that the provisions of the Act relating to levy of tax on inter-State
sales have all along been valid provisions.
This position is made
clear by the decision of this Court in Sundararamier's( 1 ) case.
From the above discussion it follows that if the assessments
made by the assessing authority are examined solely on the basis
of law, there is no ground for coming to the conclusion that those
assessments are invalid assessments.
If they
are
not invalid
assessments then the plaintiff's case that he made the payments in
question under a bona fide mistake of law is clearly unsustainable.
In law, as interpreted by us, he was bound to make those payments.
But the complicating factor is the order of
the appellate
authority.
The appellate authority had come to the conclusion
that the impugned assessments were not validly made.
It is that
order that gave the plaintiff right to claim back the amounts paid
by it though that order was partly erroneous even when it was
made and it became wholly erroneous when the Parliament validated the law with retrospective effect.
But, that did not take
away the effect of the order.
It was an order made by a competent authority, which authority, to repeat the often quoted saying
had the right to decide the case before it rightly or wrongly.
Secion 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, does not take
in any order made by any of the authorities under the Sales Tax
Act.
Tt merely refers to judgments, decrees or orders of any
court.
The orders of the appellate authority cannot be considered either as judgments or decrees or orders of the Court. In this
view, it is not necessary to examine the scope of the remaining
part of that section.
From what has been stated above, it follows
that as the
assessments made were set aside by the appellate authority, the
plaintiff was entitled to the refund of the amounts pai~ by him.
The validity of the order made by the appellate authonty cannot
he called into question in a civil court in view of s. 23 of the Act.
Tt says :
"Save as is provided in section 25, no assessment
made and no order passed under this Act or the rules
made thereunder by the Commissioner or any person
appointed under section 3 to assist him shall be called
(I) [1958] S.C.R. 1422.
.-
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
('
D
E
F
G
II
STATE OF B!HAR v. ORIENTAL COAL co. LTD. (Hegde, !.) 989
into question in any Court, and save as is provided in
section 24, no appeal or application for revision or
review shall lie against any such assessment or order."
In view of that section, the State could not have challenged
the validity of the order made by the appellate authority before
the High Court.
This takes us to the question whether the High Court of
Calcutta had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit.
We have earlier come to the conclusion that under law, the assessments made by the assessing authority are valid assessments and
therefore it cannot be said that the payments .made by the plaintiff
were made under any mistaken impression of the law.
Hence in
our opinion the fact that the cheques issued by the plaintiff were
encashed in Calcutta could not have afforded any cause of action
for filing the suit in the Calcutta High Court.
Assuming but not
deciding that the fact of encashment of cheques in Calcutta gave
rise to a cause of action at Calcutta for a claim based on the
ground that the payments were made on a mistaken impression of
law but that circumstance cannot be said to give rise to a cause of
action for the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to the
refund of the amounts paid because of the appellate authorit}'
order.
In our judgment the High Court failed to keep apart the
two questions namely the claim for the return of the amount paid
on the basis that it was paid under a mistaken impression of the
law and the claim made in pursuance of the order of the appellate
authority.
The payments made by the plaintiff by cheques have
nothing to do with the appellate authority's order.
They have not
been made on the basis of that order.
They were made on the
basis of the original assessments.
The only ground mt which the
High Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled
to claim refund of the amount paid is because of the fact that the
appellate authority had decided the appeals in its favour.
Now, let us take up the question whether any part of the cause
of action for the suit arose outside Bihar in consequence of the
order of the appellate authority.
As per rule 40 of the Bihar
Sales Tax Rules, 1949 made in pursuance of the rule making power
conferred under the Act, all applications from a dealer for refund
of the excess tax paid have to be made to the Commissioner in
form XIII.
Rule 41 provides that when the Commissioner is
satisfied that refund is due, he shall record an order sanctioning the
refund.
Rule 42 provides that when an order for refund has been
passed under rule 41, the Commissioner shall, if the dealer desires
payment in cash issue the refund payment order in form XIV and
shall make it over to the dealer for encashment at the government
treasury, a copy of the refund order shall also be forwarded to _the
Treasury Officer concerned.
Rule 43 says that if the dealer desJres
99'0
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 1 S.C.lil.
A
payment by adjustment against any amount payable to him, the
Commissioner shall issue a refund adjustment order in form XV
accompanied by a challan for adjustment. In view of these rules
an application for refund could have been made only before the
Commissioner whose office is situate in Bihar and the refund could
have been made only in accordance with the rules.
As per . the
rules the amount to be refunded can be paid to a dealer only
B
through one of the government treasuries. Hence the entire cause
of action in respect of the claim for refund on the basis of the
appellate authority's order arose only within the State of Bihar and
no part of that cause of action arose outside Bihar.
For the same
reasons no part of the cause of action for claiming the amount in
question on the basis of the doctrine that the debtor must seek his c
credilor and pay the debt due could have arisen outside Bihar, in
view of the rules referred to earlier.
The fact that the plaintiff
based his claim on three alternative grounds, for one of which
alone a part of the cause of action can at best be said to have arisen
in Calcutta but not for others, cannot confer jurisdiction on the
Calcutta High Court to try the sult on the basis qf grounds in respect of which no part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta. The
cause of action, within the contemplation of law is that which
' relates to a tenable plea.
For the reasons mentioned above we are unable to agree with
D
the High Court that any part of the cause of action for the suit
arose in Calcutta.
Hence we set aside the judgment of the DiviE
sidn Bench of the Calcutta High Court and restore that of the
single judge but not on the ground that found favour with the
learned judge.
In the result the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed but in the
Circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own
costs both in this Court as well as before the first appellate court.
F
The order of the trial court as regards costs stands.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.