AGARWAL CHEMICALS TRADERS Vs. GWALIOR YON SILK MANUFACTURING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 are in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 9-B of 1985 on 31-10-1996. By the impugned judgment suit was decreed. Plaintiff (now respondent No. 1) is a company having its registered office at Nagda in Ujjain District. Appellant No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) is a partnership firm and appellant No. 2 is the Managing partner thereof. Other respondents are the sleeping partners and were impleaded as pro-forma defendants in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,31,000/- for the price of goods supplied to appellants. It was alleged that as per the agreement, respondent No. 1 sold the goods to appellants. After delivery of goods, and despite repeated demands, appellants failed to pay the price of the goods, therefore suit as aforesaid was filed at Ujjain. Appellants contested the suit denying their liability to pay any amount and raised an objection to the maintainability of suit at Ujjain for lack of territorial jurisdiction. As according to them Civil Court at Nagpur in Maharashtra alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) Based on pleadings, trial Court framed issues, including the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court at Ujjain to try the suit and allowed the parties to adduce their evidence. Trial Judge, on due appreciation of evidence found that plaintiff supplied the goods ex-factory Nagda. The price of goods was payable ex-factory Nagda. The goods were delivered to transporter ex-plant at the responsibility, risk and costs of appellants. Cheques were issued by the appellant payable at Nagda which upon presentation, were dishonored. There are series of letters addressed to respondent company, by or on behalf of appellants not only to supply the goods, but also acknowledging the outstanding sale-price of material already supplied with a assurance to pay off existing debts at an early date. Thus taking into account relevant factors, learned trial Judge held that notwithstanding the fact that the contract might have concluded at Nagpur but part of the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court at Nagda.