This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Suits for property situate in single

dictions of different Courts.

19. If the suit be to obtain relief respecting, or comimmoveable pensation for wrong to, immoveable prodistricts, but within juris perty situate within the limits of a single district, but within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in the Court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate; provided that, in respect of the value of the subjectmatter of the suit, the entire claim be cognizable by such Court.

Suits for immoveable property situate in different districts.

If the immoveable property be situate within the limits of different districts, the suit may be instituted in any Court, otherwise competent to try it, within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.

This section applies to M. S. C. C. See Act XII of 1879, section 99:-The first paragraph differs from section 11, Act VIII, 1859, by the omission of the words "but in such case the Court in which the suit is brought shall apply to the District Court for authority to proceed with the same." The second paragraph similarly differs from section 12 by the words" but in such case the Court in which the suit is brought shall apply to the Sudder Court for authority to proceed with the same; if the suit is brought in any Court subordinate to a District Court the application shall be submitted through such District Court to which such Court is subordinate." Under this Code sanction is no longer necessary; but the opposite party may proceed under section 20. See as to the previous practice-Gour Soonderee Debia vs. Shumboo Chunder Mojoomdar, 12 W. R., 328; Bolaki Lall vs. Thakoor Pertab Singh, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 928; 6 C. L. R., 371.

Plaintiff claimed two estates, one in Rajshahye and the other in Nuddea, as belonging to her deceased husband, and alleged dispossession by the defendants. She got a decree in Rajshahye for the land situated in that district, and then sued for the land in Nuddea, alleg ing a different act of dispossession from that in the former suit: Held, that the object of both suits was to establish the plaintiff's husband's title and to obtain possession of the land as the husband's widow and representative; that the allegation of the separate acts of dispossession did not affect the case, as all the acts complained of were prior to the institution of the first suit; and that she should have proceeded under this section and her suit was barred under section 7, Act VIII, 1859-Jumoona Dassee Chowdhranee vs. Bama Soonderee Dassee Chowdhranee, 2 W. R., 148; but in a similar suit in Madras the High Court held that it was not barred, on the ground that this section was permissive and afforded a plaintiff the option of trying to proceed in one suit for the recovery of all the property claimed, but did not touch on the jurisdiction of each Court in respect of the portion of property situated within its jurisdiction-Subba Rau vs. Rama Rau, 3 Mad., 376. Suits for foreclosure of property partly in Calcutta and partly in the Mofussil-Khetter Mohun Doss vs. S. M. Chunder Money Dabee, Coryton, 125; for sale of lands in different districts by establishing the judgment-debtor's rights thereto-Ashruf Hossein Khan vs. Doctor Lazarus, S. D., N. W., 1861, p. 588, fall within this section.

Power to stay proceedings where all defendants do not reside within jurisdiction.

20. If a suit which may be instituted in more than one Court is instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or all the defendants does not or do not actually and voluntarily reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, the defendant or any defendant may, after giving notice in writing to the other parties of his intention to apply to the Court to stay proceedings, apply to the Court accordingly;

and if the Court, after hearing such of the parties as desire to be heard, is satisfied that justice is more likely to

be done by the suit being instituted in some other Court, it may stay proceedings either finally or till further order, and make such order as it thinks fit as to the costs already incurred by the parties or any of them.

In such case, if the plaintiff so requires, the Court shall return the plaint with an endorsement thereon of the order staying proceedings.

made.

Every such application shall be made at the earliest Application when to bo possible opportunity, and in all cases before the issues are settled; and any defendant not so applying shall be deemed to have acquiesced in the institution of the suit.

This section applies to H. C. and, except the last paragraph, to M. S. C. C. Notice must be given to the "other parties," so that if one defendant only applies he is bound to serve the other defendant with notice, and where an application is made by one of several defendants without notice having been given to the defendant who do not apply, the application should be allowed to stand over till notice is given. The denial of an application made by one defendant prejudices the right of another defendant, subsequently served with summons, to make a similar application (see section 126, N. Y. Procedure Code.)

Where two suits are pending in different Courts regarding the same subject-matter, priority of time is the proper guide in determining which suit should be allowed to proceedMekjee Khetsee vs. Deveechund, 4 C. L. R., 282. There A, who was employed as B's agent, instituted a suit in Calicut against B for the balance of an account, in July 1878. In December 1878, B sued A in Calcutta for an account and for damages caused by his alleged negligence, and it was held that the latter suit must be stayed.

Remission of court-fee

where suit instituted in another Court.

An appeal lies from an order under this section, staying proceedings in a suit. 21. Where the Court, under section 20, stays proceedings, and the plaintiff re-institutes his suit in another Court, the plaint shall not be chargeable with any court-fee; provided that the proper fee has been levied on the institution of the suit in the former Court, and that the plaint has been. returned by such Court.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Procedure where Courts in which suit may be instituted are subordinate to the same appellate Court.

to

22. Where suit may be instituted in more Courts than one, and such Courts are subordinate to the same appellate Court, any defendant, after giving notice in writing to the other parties of his intention apply to such Court to transfer the suit to another Court, may apply accordingly; and the appellate Court, after hearing the other parties, if they desire to be heard, shall determine in which of the Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.

This section applies to H. C.

are not so subordinate.

23. Where such Courts are subordinate to different Procedure where they appellate Courts, but are subordinate to the same High Court, any defendant, after giving notice in writing to the other parties of his intention to apply to the High Court to transfer the suit to another

Court having jurisdiction, may apply accordingly. If the suit is brought in any Court subordinate to a District Court, the application, together with the objections, if any, filed by the other parties, shall be submitted through the District Court to which such Court is subordinate. The High Court may, after considering the objections, if any, of the other parties, determine in which of the Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.

This section applies to H. C.

Procedure

where they

are subordinate to differ

24. Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, any defendant may, after giving notice in writing to the other parties of his intention to apply to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situate, apply accordingly.

ent High Courts.

If the suit is brought in any Court subordinate to a District Court, the application, together with the objections, if any, filed by the other parties, shall be submitted through the District Court to which such Court is subordinate,

and such High Court shall, after considering the objections, if any, of the other parties, determine in which of the several Courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.

Act VIII, 1859, section 13. This section applies to H. C.

See the case of Skinner vs. Orde, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 241; L. R., 6 Ind. App. 126.

Transfer of suits.

25. The High Court or District Court may, on the application of any of the parties, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without giving such notice, withdraw any suit, whether pending in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and try the suit itself, or transfer it for trial to any other such subordinate Court competent to try the same in respect of its nature and the amount or value of its subject-matter.

For the purposes of this section, the Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.

The Court trying any suit withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.

Act VIII, 1859, section 6. This section applies to H. C., P. S. C. C., and M. S. C. C. On what grounds a suit should be transferred.-Section 6, Act VIII of 1859, contained a clause to the effect that any suit instituted might be withdrawn by the District Court whenever it might see sufficient cause for so doing. Under this section it has been decided that the power given to a Zillah Judge for the withdrawal of suits from the Subordinate Courts should only be exercised upon cause shown, and ordinarily not without opportunity given to the parties to the suit to be heard upon the

question. The District Court cannot withdraw from the Subordinate Court suits which the Subordinate Court has received by order of remand from a Court to which the District Court is itself subordinate, unless the higher Court has, by its order of remand, so changed the original character of the suit remanded as to make it in effect a new suit-Mahomed Zahoor Ali vs. Thakooranee Rutta Koonwur, 2 Alla., 481; see, however, Tarucknath Mookerjee vs. Gouree Churn Mookerjee, 3 W. R., 147. The High Court will not transfer a case from a Court which has jurisdiction to try it, where no application has been made to the Judge of the latter Court, nor any notice given to the plaintiff-Kristo Dass Koondoo vs. Issur Chunder Chowdry, 11 W. R., 189; and where a suit has by inadvertence been filed in a Court not competent to try it, the High Court cannot empower the Court to decide it-Peary Lall Mozoomdar vs. Komal Keshore Dossea, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 30. The 13th section of the Letters Patent (1865) of the High Court at Fort William gives the Court power to order a suit to be transferred for trial, only where the transfer is agreed on by the parties, or for the purposes of justice, and in the absence of agreement it must be made out that there will be inconvenience amounting to this-that if the case be tried in the Court in which it was originally tried the trial will be unsatisfactory. The mere fact that it would be less expensive to try the case in the High Court is not sufficient of itself for the Court to act upon and order the case to be transferred-Rajah Ojooderam Khan vs. Sreemutty Nobinmoney Dossee, 1 Ind. Jur., N. S., 396; but where, on a motion to transfer, it appeared that the parties and witnesses resided in Calcutta, that it would be cheaper to try the suit there, and that the parties appearing on the motion consented, a transfer was ordered-Payn vs. Administrator-General, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 768. It is no objection to the trial of a case transferred under this section that the transfer order was founded on a misconception-Ram Bux vs. Girdharee Lall, 2 Agra, 178.

At what stage a suit may be transferred.-This section does not authorize the transfer of proceedings already commenced and entertained; and consequently a District Judge has no authority to call up an execution case from the file of the Subordinate Judge to his own Court-Moulvie Abdool Hye vs. McRae, 23 W. R., 1; Lutchmeeput Dokur vs. Maharajah Jugutinder Bunwary Lall, Marsh., 195; contra-Gaya Pershad vs. Bhup Singh, I. L. R., 1 Alla., 180; Balaji Ranchoddas vs. Mohun Lall, I. L. R., 5 Bom,, 680, see Hira Lal vs. Badri Dass, I. L. R., 2 Alla., at p. 796; nor transfer it-Shaikh Hamidooddeen vs. Bhadae Sahoo, 18 W. R., 345; Anund Mohan Talookdar vs. Srija Kant Lahoory, 13 W. R., 222; see cases cited in arguendo, 4 C. L. R., 344-5; nor can a Judge call up a case to his own file after the evidence has been taken in the Subordinate Court-Dumree Sahoo vs. Jugdharee, 13 W. R., 398; Ranee Asmed Koonwar vs. W. Taylor, W. R. (1864), p. 14; Syud Korshed Ali vs. W. Tayler, W. R. (1864), p. 15; but the irregularity is cured by consent-Yakoob Ali vs. Luchmun Dass, 6 Alla., 80. A District Judge is not competent to transfer a case of execution of a decree which has been passed by his own Court to the file of the Subordinate Judge for disposal-Chowdry Harmedoollah vs. Muteeoonissa Bebee, 15 W. R., 574; Kedarnath Mahata vs. Bungshee Dhur Roy, 17 W. R., 45.

A senior assistant Judge is not competent to hear an appeal from an order made in the execution of a decree in a case in which he is not competent to hear an appeal from the decree itself-Narbheram Kisandas vs. Navindram Kusheram, 5 Bom., 46.

Every suit requires a separate application to transfer-Kishoree Lall vs. Luchman Doss, 2 Alla., 147.

CHAPTER III.

OF PARTIES AND THEIR APPEARANCES, APPLICATIONS AND

ed as plaintiffs,

ACTS.

26. All persons may be joined as plaintiffs in whom the Persons who may be join- right to any relief claimed is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same cause of action. And judgment may be given for such one or more of the plaintiffs as may be found to be entitled to relief, for such relief as he

or they may be entitled to, without any amendment. But the defendant, though unsuccessful, shall be entitled to his costs occasioned by so joining any person who is not found entitled to relief, unless the Court in disposing of the costs of the suit otherwise directs.

Judicature Acts, Order 16, Rule 1, altered. This section applies to H. C., M.S. C. C., and P. S. C. C.

Government, under the name of The Secretary of State for India in Council, can sue, and is liable to be sued, in the Courts of this country.

Charities.-The Advocate-General is entitled to carry on all suits in the High Court for the administration of charitable funds, and to appear and represent the Crown in them if brought by another party-Attorney-General vs. Brodie, 4 Moore, 190; Wardens of Nossa Senora vs. Hartmann, Perry's O. Cases, 333; Advocate-General vs. Damothar, id., 526. See Panchcowrie Mull vs. Chundroolall, I. L. R., 3 Cal., 563.

Foreign States-recognized by the Government of this country-can sue in their recognized names-U. S. vs. Wagner, L. R., 2 Ch., App., 582; U. S. vs. McRae, L. R., 3 Ch., App., 79. A suit for property belonging to a Rajah cannot be brought in the name of his Political Agent-Girdhari Das vs. Powlet, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 690.

Joint Family. - All the members of a joint family should sue together; those only who refuse should be made defendants—Rajaram Tewari vs. Luchman Pershaud, 12 W. R., 478.

Contract.-All persons who entered into the contract should be made plaintiffs, even though they form a joint mitakshara family-Ramsebuk vs. Ram Lall Koondoo, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 815; but if the contract is in the name of one, he can sue-Bungsee Singh vs. Sudist Lall, 10 C. L. R., 263; Unni Namliar vs. Nilakandan, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 141. As to a suit for foreclosure by one of several joint mortgagees, see Luke vs. The South Kensington Hotel Co., 7 Ch. D., 789; 11 Ch. D., 121.

Where a document creates a joint obligation all the parties should sue-Gopal Chunder Gooho vs. Juggodumba Dossea, 10 W. R., 411; Ramjoy Singh vs. Nagur Ghazee, 5 W. R., Act X, 168.

A person can sue on a bond in the name of another party if he shows by oral evidence that the debt secured by the bond was money advanced by him or by the party in whose favor the bond was executed in his behalf-Deva Rau vs. Venatesa Achariyar, 1 Mad., 452; but the manager of an indigo concern cannot sue in his own name on a contract executed with a previous manager, and in which he has no personal interest-Glascott vs. Gopal Shaikh, 9 W. R., 254.

Rent. In a suit in regard to an undivided fraction of rent, the other coproprietors should be made parties-Gopal vs. Macnaghtan, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 751; Sogender Chunder Ghose vs. Hurris Chunder, 10 C. L. R., 331; Obhoy Gobind Chowdhry vs. Chowdhry, I. L. R., 8 Cal., 277.

Forfeiture. In a suit on a condition to re-enter all the parties suing must join as plaintiffs-Reasut Hossein vs. Chorwar Singh, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 470; so also in a suit to avoid an under-tenure-Dwarka Nath Pal vs. Grish Chunder, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 872.

Manager.-A Karayama Samudayam cannot sue in his own name in suits on behalf of the Devaswam-Unni Namliar vs. Nilakandan, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 141.

A Corporation must sue and be sued in its corporate name-Ram Doss Sein vs. Stephenson, 10 W. R., 366; it cannot be sued through its agent-Nobin Chunder Paul vs. Stephenson, 15 W. R., 534; so in a suit for declaration of title against a zemindar, the zemindar and not his karindah should be made a party-Madho Rao Apa vs. Thakoor Pershaud, 3 Agra, 127.

In case of an unincorporated or unregistered company, the individual members must sue and sued ; but if a plaintiff does not know the names of the persons composing it he may sue them in the name in which they carry on business, stating in his plaint his inability to describe them better-Koylash Chunder Roy vs. Ellis, 8 W. R., 45.

Assignee.-In England the right to bring an action could not at common law be transferred or assigned, so that the assignee might bring a suit in his own name, in this country not only may a cause of action be so assigned, but also the liability