MALLESHAPPA LINGAPPA KALLED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Misc.Second Appeal No.69 of 1972 arises out of the suit OS.No,.5 of 1968 on the file of theMunsiff at Hubli. MSA No.70 of 1972 arises out of the suit OS-No.8 of 1968 on the file of the same Court. The parties are common in both the suits. The appellant filed the suits for recovery of Rs.1,158 in one case and Rs. 1,202 in the other which were collected as the over-charges by the authorities of the Central Railways at Bombay. The appellant is a merchant and he consigned certain goods through the railways at Hubli to be delivered to 'self' at Wadibandar, Bombay. When the goods reached their destination at Bombay over-charges were collected from the plaintiff at Bombay. The first defendant is the Union of India, represented by the General Manager of South Central Railway at Secunderabad, the second defendant the South Central Railway, represented by the General Manager of the said Railway, and the third defendant is the Central Railway, represented by the General Manager of the said Railway, Bombay. Hubli is under the administration of the Squth Central Railways. Bombay is under the administration of the Central Railways. Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statements contending, among other things, that the Court at Hubli had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suits. The question of jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue in both the suits. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the Court at Hubli had no jurisdiction to try these suits. The plaintiff has preferred these appeals against that finding.

(2.) Sec.80, Railways Act, 1890 deals with suits for compensation for loss of the life or personal injury to a passenger or for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration of non-delivery of animals or goods. Hence, it has no application to the present suits. S.78, Cl. (B) provides for notice being issued within six months from the date of the delivery of animals or goods carried by the railway when the claim for refund of an over-charge in respect of animals or goods carried by the railway is made. Hence, the question of jurisdiction has to be decided having regard to the provisions of S.20 CPC

(3.) It is contended by Mr. R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the Court at Hubli has jurisdiction to try the suits under Cls. (a) and (b) of S.20 as well as under Cl. (c) of that section of the CPC. He has relied on the decision in Union of India v. Ladulal Jam, AIR 1963 SC. 1681. That was a suit for recovery of a sum on account of non-delivery of goods booked from Kalyanganj, which is in West Bengal, to Kanki, which is in the State of Bihar The suit was filed at Gauhati, in the State of Assam. It was alleged in the plaint that the cause of action arose at Pandu within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gauhati, the place where notice under S. 80 of the, CPC was duly served upon the defendant railway and that the suit was filed in the Court within the jurisdiction of which the defendant railway has its principal place of business by virtue of its head-quarters being at Pandu. The head-quarters of the Northern Frontier Railway Administration was at Pandu which is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gauhati. The question which fell for decision was whether the running of the railways by the Union of India cannot be said to amount to its carrying on business and that therefore the fact that the head-quarters of the Northern Frontier Railway Administration is at Pandu within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gauhati does not give the Court, jurisdiction under S.20 CPC. It was held that the running of railways is such an activity which comes within the expression 'business', that the Union of India, carries on the business of railways and can be sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gauhati within whose territorial jurisdiction the head-quarters of one of the railways run by the Union is situated. On the basis of this decision the Court at Hubli certainly has jurisdiction to try the suits under Cls. (a) and (b) of S.20 of the CPC.