RATAN LAL ADUKJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17-6-1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full Bench Reference 1 of 1983 (reported in AIR 1987 Cal 311) raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the. forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in S. 80 of the Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by S. 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961)) is limited by S. 80 itself or whether provisions of S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.

(2.) In the original proceedings from which C.A. 224 of 1988 arises, appellant instituted Money Suit No. 35 of 1978 against the Respondent in the Court of the 6th Sub-Judge at Alipore, Dist.-24 Parganas, West Bengal, seeking recovery of Rs. 13,200/ - respecting an alleged short delivery of a consignment booked with the Respondent on 24-4-1975 Ex-Ernakularn to Ranchi, a station under the South Eastern Railway Administration. Respondent contested the suit on grounds, inter alia, that having regard to the said S. 80, the Court at Alipore had no jurisdiction. The trial Court by its order 22-5-1981 having rejected this objection as to jurisdiction, Respondent preferred C.R. 2938 of 1981 under S.115 of the Civil P. C. before the High Court to have that order revised. The matter was referred to a Full Bench, culminating in the order now under appeal.

(3.) In C. A. 734 of 1988, appellant instituted a Suit No. 3831 of 1985 in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,573.50 p. on account of short deliveries of two consignments booked with the Respondent on 27-4-1984 and 24-7-1984 respectively, Ex-Saugar in Central Railway to Ramkrishtopur in Eastern Railway. Similar objection as to jurisdiction having been urged, the trial Court rejected that objection and decreed the suit. This was assailed before the High Court by the Respondent. The Full Bench, by its common order, has held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.