DALPATRI JHANJHNARI Vs. WEST END WATCH CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point in this case is whether the Ujjain Court, had jurisdiction to hear the suit out of which this revision has arisen. The Defendant non -applicant (West End Watch Company) carries on business at Bombay. The Plaintiff applicant sent his wrist -watch there for repairs and a letter to the Defendant, the material portion of which is in the following words:

(2.) THE Defendant's correspondence shows that they had opened the parcel but found nothing in it. After correspondence with the Presidency Post Master the Defendant informed the Plaintiff who was of the opinion that the Company is responsible for the loss sustained by him. He, therefore, brought this suit for recovery of Rs. 57/ - as the price of the wrist watch and Rs. 58/ - as damages (i.e. for the recovery of 115/ - rupees in all). In para 7 of the plaint he mentioned that the Plaintiff resides at Ujjain, that he sent the wrist watch from Ujjain and that the Defendant ought to have returned it to him at Ujjain, therefore, the Ujjain Court had jurisdiction.

(3.) THE judgment of the Small Causes Court, I regret to observe, is rather unsatisfactory. He has not referred to any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in his opinion governed the case or to the question whether there was any agreement between the parties. The unsystematic approach to the whole question by the Court below has given rise to different kinds of argument at the Bar which will have to be referred to briefly. It is well settled law now, that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined with reference to the allegations in the plaint and not with reference to pleas. The basis of the suit, according to the plaint, does not appear to have been any agreement between the parties that the watch will be returned to Ujjain after repairs. The letter of the Plaintiff referred to above was, firstly, not an offer. There was neither offer nor acceptance and there was no contract between the parties for repairs of the watch or for the return of watch to Ujjain. Secondly, even if the Plaintiff's letter referred to above be regarded as an offer, (which it was not) then an offer must be deemed to have been made at the place where it was received and not at the place from which it was sent. - 'Ahmad Bux v. Fazal Karim', ILR (1940) Mad. 195; - 'Ratanlal v. Harcharanlal' ILR (1947) All. 44; - 'Manilal v. Venkatachalapathi Iyer' : AIR 1943 Mad. 471; - 'Arthur Butlar Co. Ltd. v. Dist. Board of Gaya', 25 Pat. 292 and - 'Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Libitity Co. v. Narsingh Prasad', 27 Pat. 723. Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act is clear on this point.