MAGANLAL DEVJI MEWAWALA Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for J. M. L. Sinha, J.) :-The present appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Gyanpur, district Varanasi, dated 10th April, 1978, disposing of the preliminary issue that the court at Gyanpur had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are as follows : Plaintiff-appellant nos. 1 and 2 carried on business in partnership in the name known as "Rekha Warenhandels G.m. b. H & Co., K.G. 2, Hamburg, West Germany". Defendant respondent no. 1 carried on business of manufacturing Indian handknitted woollen carpets and rugs in the name and style of M/s. Satya Narain Lal & Sons, Bhadohi, district Varanasi. THE plaintiffs entered into a contract through one Sri M. P. Ramchandran on 9th of January, 1973 with the defendants for the purchase of Indian handknitted woollen carpets and rugs. THE details and particulars of the contract are given in paragraph 3 of the plaint. THE terms of the contract were incorporated in a letter-pad at the foot of which was noted :

(3.) OBVIOUSLY, in view of clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 20, the defendants actually and voluntarily resided at the time of the suit or carried on business at Gyanpur. Therefore, the suit could be filed in the Court at Gyanpur. But, in view of clause (c) of Sec. 20, a part of cause of action may be said to have arisen at Hamburg inasmuch as the contract was for the supply of the goods at Hamburg and payment was also to be made through some bank at Hamburg. If the cause of action is one which had partly arisen in one court and partly in another, both the courts could have jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, in this view of the matter, even if it is accepted that the court at Hamburg could also try the suit, as it could be tried by the court of India, it shall be open to the parties to enter into such a contract whereby the Court at one place might be chosen as the forum (?) the suit. If the note at the foot-note of the letter pad is taken to be a part of the contract between the parties, the Court at Hamburg certainly had the jurisdiction and the suit could be filed there. Therefore, the real question for consideration is whether the endorsement made at the foot of the letter-pad was in the contemplation of the parties of the suit.