Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. 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 busin The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
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 busines.
(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.
Section 20, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2005-09-26 (not same-date order-4 ROP; do not use the later 2005-12-14 order-8.pdf). CA 1999. Territorial jurisdiction under CPC 16/20: a suit for immovable property (or a contract relating to such property) must be filed where the property is situate; parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that the Code has not given. Map cpc 20 (the residual 'where defendants reside or cause of action arises' clause, read with the s.16 overlay).
On this section: s.20 (read with s.16): a suit for immovable property, or a contract relating to such property, must be filed where the property is situate. Parties cannot by agreement confer territorial jurisdiction that the Code withholds.
-
Advance Magazine Publishers INC vs Just Lifestyle Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a plaintiff resides or carries on business at a place where the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen, or where the plaintiff or any of them ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, the suit can be filed at such place under Sections 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, where the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arise at the same location, the plaintiff cannot invoke Sections 62(2) or 134(2) to file suit at a different place, including distant branch offices where no cause of action has arisen. The non-obstante clause in these provisions does not oust the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure but merely provides an additional forum. The interpretation must be subject to the restriction that if cause of action has arisen wholly or in part at the plaintiff's principal place of business, suit must be filed at that place and not at subordinate offices at far-flung locations. This interpretation prevents abuse of the provisions and counter-mischief to defendants while still ensuring the remedy intended for rights-holders - avoiding deterrence due to distance from courts.
On this section: Section 20 provides suit must be instituted where defendant resides/carries on business or where cause of action wholly or partly arises. Court held Sections 62(2) and 134(2) provide additional forums but do not oust Section 20 applicability. Explanation to Section 20 regarding corporations' principal and subordinate offices applies to copyright and trademark jurisdiction provisions.
-
Indian Performing Rights Society LTD vs Sanjay Dalia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a plaintiff (including corporations) has its principal office or carries on main business at a particular location AND the cause of action wholly or in part arises at that same location, the plaintiff must file suit at that location and cannot file suit at a distant subordinate office location merely because it carries on some business there through a branch office. The provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provide additional forums for filing suits where plaintiff resides or carries on business, but these provisions do not permit suit filing at locations where cause of action has not arisen. The 'notwithstanding' clauses in these sections modify, but do not entirely eliminate, the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When plaintiff has a choice of forum where cause of action has arisen, that choice cannot be circumvented by invoking distant branch office presence. The interpretation must balance plaintiff's convenience (original legislative intent) with prevention of harassment to defendants (counter mischief), adopting the construction that suppresses the mischief and prevents counter-mischief.
On this section: Section 20 prescribes three alternative forums: (a) where defendant resides or carries on business, (b) where any defendant resides or carries on business with defendant's acquiescence, or (c) where cause of action wholly or partially arises. The Explanation clarifies that corporations carry on business at principal office and at subordinate offices only where cause of action arises. The Court held that Sections 62 and 134 provide additional forums but do not eliminate the necessity of cause of action - they merely exempt plaintiffs from traveling to defendant's location if they can file at th
-
Sinnamani vs G. Vettivel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a statute (such as the Indian Trust Act) provides for filing a suit for certain purposes (e.g., Section 59 for beneficiary enforcement of trusts) and provides for filing original petitions for other purposes (e.g., Sections 72-73 for trustee management), the procedure prescribed by the statute must be strictly followed. An Original Petition filed in violation of this statutory procedure cannot be converted into a suit in the absence of an express enabling provision in the statute itself (such as exists in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act but does not exist in the Trust Act). Courts cannot invoke general principles like the doctrine against hyper-technicalities or inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to circumvent the mandatory procedural distinctions established by the statute.
On this section: Discussed in P.A. Ahmad Ibrahim case regarding jurisdiction
-
G. Sanjeeva vs M. Vishnu Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit is based on a promissory note and its execution is proved or the signature is admitted, the court must raise a presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was made for consideration; the burden to disprove such consideration lies solely on the defendant.
On this section: Suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… At the outset, it would also be, in our opinion, relevant to understand that the provisions of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India appear to have been engrafted in a language similar or akin to sub section (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as "CPC, 1908" ). The framers were acutely aware that apart from the territorial jurisdiction conferred upon a competent Civil Court exercising its powers in accordance with sub section (a) and (b) of section 20, CPC, 1908, it would be necessary to confer …
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (26 Sep 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.20 (read with s.16): a suit for immovable property, or a contract relating to such property, must be filed where the property is situate. Parties cannot by agreement confer territorial jurisdiction that the Code withholds. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 20, section 20 CPC, section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (26 Sep 2005).
What should I read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 20, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.