This is also regardless of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of C.P.C. Clause (a) of Section 20 lays down that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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. Clause (b) of Section 20 lays down that every Suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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 work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution. In other words, clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 recognize dominus s itus of the defendant. Clause (c) of Section 20 provides that the Suit may be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. This is independent of the fact as regards residence of the defendant as also carrying on his business, etc. by the defendant. As against this, Section 134 recognizes plaintiff's right to institute Suit where he actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Thus, the convenience of the plaintiff is considered. The dominus situs for instituting the Suit is the plaintiff. This is regardless of where the defendant resides or carries on business, etc. in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of C.P.C. as also regardless as to whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in terms of Section 20(c) of C.P.C.
