ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 220 of 1972, Sub-Court, thanjavur, is the appellant in this appeal and the question debated relates to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, to entertain the suit. THE appellant booked 100 bags of green gram at Boodalur railway station of the southern Railway on 10th May, 1970, to be carried to Naya Bazaar railway station in New Delhi of Northern Railway under railway receipt No. A 073860. THE consignment reached the destination on 22nd June, 1970, and the consignee vinodhkumar of New Delhi who had agreed to take delivery of the consignment by paying the hundi and producing the railway receipt, refused to do so as the green gram bags were in a damaged condition, as a result of which the appellant claimed that he had to be persuade Messrs. Mutsadi Pal to take delivery after an assessment of the damage to 74 bags of gram in respect of which a certificate was also issued. Alleging that the appellant sustained damages as a result of the negligence of the respondent the appellant laid the suit O. S. No. 220 of 1975 before the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, against the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,265.

(2.) THAT suit was resisted by the respondent herein on the ground that there was no negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of its servants in the carriage of the goods and that the damages claimed were unreasonable and excessive. In an additional written statement, the respondent raised a plea that the Sub-Court at Thanjavur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the alleged negligence was that of the Southern Railway against whom the suit had not been filed and the respondent did not have any place of business or office within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, but had its office only in New Delhi . Thereupon, the appellant filed a reply statement contending that the cause of action for the suit arose at Boodalur within the jurisdiction of the Subcourt, thanjavur, and it is not open to the respondent to raise a question of jurisdiction belatedly.

(3.) THE other objection raised by the appellant as regards jurisdiction has no merit. It has already been pointed out that the question of jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, was clearly and pointedly raised in the course of the additional written statement filed by the respondent and an issue was framed touching that aspect. THE parties had gone to trial on that issue being fully alive to the objection raised. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had either been taken by surprise or did not have any adequate opportunity of meeting the objection raised by the respondent. Consequently, it cannot be said that the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be permitted to be raised by the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned District judge directing the return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper Court is perfectly correct. THE civil miscellaneous appeal, fails and is dismissed. Both the parties will bear their costs throughout. THE appellant is granted two months'time from this day to take return of the plaint and for representing it before proper Court. Appeal dismissed.