VoxJuris
Home › Acts › CPC › Chapter I › Section 20

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Chapter I: Suits in General · Place of suing

Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

In plain words

Other suits must be filed where the defendant, or each defendant, lives, carries on business or works for gain, or where any defendant does so (with the court's leave or the others' acquiescence), or where the cause of action arises wholly or partly.

  • A company is treated as carrying on business at its principal office in India, or at a subordinate office for causes of action arising there.

Example: B in Delhi buys goods through his agent from A in Calcutta, delivered in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price in Calcutta or Delhi.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

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.

**** *

[Explanation].— A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in [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.

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this section

Section 20 is the residuary rule on territorial jurisdiction. Subject to sections 15 to 19, a suit is filed where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. Its Explanation fixes where a corporation is deemed to carry on business.

Where the plaintiff may sue

  • (a) Where the defendant (or every defendant) actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.
  • (b) Where any one of several defendants does so, with the court's leave or the acquiescence of the others.
  • (c) Where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part.

How it fits with sections 16 to 19

Suits about immovable property go where the property is (section 16), and suits for compensation for wrongs to the person or movables may be filed where the wrong was done or the defendant lives (section 19). Section 20 governs everything else, mainly contract and money suits.

Corporations: the Explanation

A corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or, for a cause of action arising where it has a subordinate office, at that place. The Supreme Court reads the 'or' as alternative, not cumulative: where the cause of action arises at a place with a branch office, the corporation can be sued there, and not at its head office merely because the head office is there.

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses

  • Parties may choose one of several courts that already have jurisdiction; the clause is valid under section 28 of the Contract Act.
  • They cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that has none.
  • Words such as 'only' or 'exclusive' are not essential; the intention to exclude can be inferred.
  • The clause must not oust all courts.

Objection to territorial jurisdiction

An objection to place of suing must be taken at the earliest opportunity, in the trial court, before issues are settled. Under section 21 an appellate or revisional court will not entertain it unless there was also a consequent failure of justice.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co. 1991 INSC 172

    Goods were booked at the carrier's branch offices in Tamil Nadu. Under the Explanation the corporation was deemed to carry on business there, not at its Bombay head office, so the Bombay courts had no jurisdiction and a clause choosing them could not oust the courts where the suits were filed.

  • Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2013 INSC 422

    Where the contract names the courts at a particular place and those courts have jurisdiction, the parties are taken to have excluded all other courts, even without words like 'only' or 'exclusive'.

  • Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 473

    An exclusive jurisdiction clause in employment letters naming Mumbai courts was valid. For validity it must be consistent with section 28, the chosen court must be competent to have jurisdiction, and the parties must have conferred jurisdiction on a specific set of courts.

Common mistakes

  • Suing a corporation at its head office when the cause of action arose at a branch.
  • Treating an exclusive jurisdiction clause as able to create jurisdiction.
  • Raising territorial objections for the first time in appeal.

Read with: Section 16 CPC, Section 21 CPC, Section 28 Indian Contract Act, 1872

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 20