SHAH GANPAT PASU AND CO Vs. GULZARILAL BHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which arises in this- petition for revision filed by the defendant is whether any part of the cause of action arose at Kareli District Narsinghpur, and the court there had juris diction to entertain the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs reside in Kareli and defenr dant firm carries on business as commission agent at Bombay. It is not disputed that on 13-7-54, the plaintiff had sent 50 bags of Masur dal to be sold by the defendant as commission agent. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant firm has not properly accounted for the sales and is therefore liable to render accounts.

(3.) THE facts alleged in the plaint to bring. the suit within the jurisdiction of the kareli Court as stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint are these. One Raojibhai residing at Kareli gave himself out as a partner and also as a representative of the firm of defendants and canvassed business for them. In July, 1954, Raoji proposed to the plaintiffs to appoint his firm as adhatias (commission agents) assuring that the firm would work profitably to their satisfaction and would charge usual commission and expenses.