Territorial jurisdiction for movable property claims can follow the place where wrongful conduct causes consequential loss.

For a suit seeking compensation for wrong done to movable property, territorial jurisdiction may lie where the wrongful act's consequence and resulting damage are felt. Construing Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court treated "wrong done" as covering both the act and its effect, and held that Ernakulam had jurisdiction because the timber was meant for delivery there and the loss was felt there. Objections to place of suing under Section 21 must be raised at the earliest opportunity and may be waived by conduct; participation in cross-examination and part-trial amounted to waiver, so return of the plaint at that stage was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property could be entertained by the court within whose jurisdiction the consequence of the wrongful act was felt. (ii) Whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction was waived and had to be decided at the earliest stage.

Issue (i): Whether a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property could be entertained by the court within whose jurisdiction the consequence of the wrongful act was felt.

Analysis: For suits for compensation for wrong done to person or movables, the place of suing is governed by Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression "wrong done" was construed as including not merely the wrongful act but also its effect and the resultant damage. On the plaint averments and the accompanying documents, the timber was intended for delivery at Ernakulam, and the alleged stoppage at Karukutty prevented its movement to that destination and caused loss there as well. The effect of the alleged wrongful act was thus felt within Ernakulam.

Conclusion: The Sub-court, Ernakulam had territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction was waived and had to be decided at the earliest stage.

Analysis: Objections as to the place of suing fall under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Such objections are capable of waiver, express or implied. Here, the respondents raised the objection but proceeded with cross-examination and part-trial before the issue was decided, which amounted to waiver of the objection. The belated return of the plaint after evidence had been recorded was inconsistent with the statutory scheme of Section 21.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction stood waived and could not support return of the plaint at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The order returning the plaint was unsustainable, and the suit was directed to proceed before the Sub-court, Ernakulam.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property, territorial jurisdiction may lie where the wrongful act has its consequential effect and damage, and an objection to place of suing under Section 21 can be waived by conduct.

---