NARSINGH LAL Vs. FATECHAND JAIDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 10-1-2005 passed by 3rd ADJ, Mandsaur in C.S. No. 7-B/2002 whereby suit filed by the appellant was returned to the appellant under Order VII Rule 10, CPC with a liberty to file suit before the Competent Court, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit before the learned Court below on 16-8-2002 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,05,080.00 alleging that the appellant is carrying on his business of agricultural produce in the name and style of M/s Vijay Traders at Bhanpura. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Commission Agents of agricultural produce and carrying on the business at Delhi. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 is a Public Undertaking and is a manufacturer of Food products. Further case of the appellant was that on 5-10-1996, respondent No. 2 inquired the market report of Soyabean and telephonically directed to supply Soyabean, which was to be supplied to respondent No. 3. It was alleged that on 5th October, 1996 a contract took place between the appellant and respondent No. 2 for the supply of Soyabean @ Rs. 1,350/- per quintal telephonically. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business jointly. It was alleged that 800 quintal of Soyabean was supplied by the appellant between 13th October, 1996 and 22nd October, 1996 through various trucks worth Rs. 10,39,582.00. It was alleged that as per instructions of respondent No. 2 appellant dispatched the bills and goods receipts to respondent No. 3, which was duly received by respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 took the delivery of goods after paying the freight amounting to Rs. 41,615/- to the transporters. It was alleged that appellant was assured that the appellant will get the amount within two weeks from the date of delivery of goods and when the appellant did not get the price, appellant met with respondent No. 3 at that time, appellant was informed that an amount of Rs. 11,72,168.19 paise has been paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 also supplied the full particulars of the challan whereby payment was made to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by respondent No. 3. It was alleged that thereafter appellant repeatedly asked the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also issued notice but of no avail hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was alleged that no part of contract took place at Bhanpura, the entire transaction has taken place at Delhi, therefore, it is only at the Court of Delhi who is having jurisdiction. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.