MEGHJI HIRJI AND CO Vs. MANGILAL GORDHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that Gordhandas Jitmal, the father of the defendant, had appointed them as commission agents and pacca adatias to effect forward transactions in diverse commodities on his behalf in Bombay. The plaintiffs allege that an account in respect of the dealings was made between the plaintiffs and Gordhandas Jitmal on January 26, 1940, when a sum of Rs. 15,092-10-3 was found due and owing by the deceased to the plaintiffs, and on the same day a promissory note promising to pay Rs. 11,000 was passed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE present suit is filed against the defendant as the heir and legal representative of Gordhandas Jitmal for the recovery of the balance due under the promissory note dated January 26, 1940. THE relief against the defendant is restricted to the payment of the amount out of the estate of his deceased father come to his hands.

(3.) NOW, looking to Section 11, it is clear that what it provides is that the Court shall have no jurisdiction to try suits of the description mentioned in Section 3, Clause (w). Instead of setting out all the suits mentioned in Section 3, Clause (w) seriatim in Section 11, the Legislature more compendiously refers to Section 3(w) to indicate the nature of suits in which the Court would have no jurisdiction. Section 11 is clear in its terms. It lays down that in every suit of the description referred to in Section 3, Clause (w), if the defendant is an agriculturist, then that suit must be instituted and tried in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he resides. In this case the defendant says: I do not reside within ,the jurisdiction of this Court. I am being sued in a suit of the description mentioned in Section 3, Clause (w). I am an agriculturist and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.