SINGAMSETTI RAMARAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is the plaintiff who filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1.300.00. being the value of goods damaged and short delivered. THE plaintiff alleged that he booked a consignment of 200 bags of gram-dall under Invoice No. 20 dt. 16/07/1958 from Sirs! on the Northern Railway for delivery at Pendurti on the South Eastern Railway. THE Railway Receipt was endorsed by the consignor in favour of the plaintiff at Kakinada for valuable consideration.THE petitioner alleges that on account of negligence and misconduct of the Railway administration the consignment was damaged and became unfit for human consumption. On the application made for open delivery the Railway authorities examined and assessed the damage, and the shrot delivery of the stock. THE plaintiff therefore sued the Railway, in this case the Union of India, for compensation and damages.THE defendant resisted the suit on the ground firstly, that the court had no jurisdiction and secondly, that the suit claim was excessive. THE lower court considered the question of jurisdiction of the court as a preliminary issue and disposed of the case by holding that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed the plaint to be presented to the proper court. It is this order that is challenged in the revision petition.

(2.) IT is urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the endorsement of the Railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff being part of the cause of action would entitle him to sue at the place where the endorsement took place. This is urged on the analogy of the right to sue at the place where a negotiable instrument is endorsed which would be a part of the cause of action, and for this purpose the learned counsel invited my attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Alliance Assurance Company v. Union of India AIR 1959 Cal 563. In this case, no doubt, the learned Judge observed