FIRM KANHAIYALAL Vs. DINESHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this revision petition is as to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Ratlam, to try a suit instituted by the opponent for damages for breach of a contract to sell and deliver five wagons of Makka. Equivalent Citation:

(2.) IN his suit, the plaintiff has alleged that on 23-3-1955 the petitioner firm doing business at Ramganj Mandi, Rajasthan, made an offer to him on phone for the sale of five wagons of Makka at a certain rate; that the goods were to be delivered at Asarwa; and that subsequently the defendant failed to deliver the. stipulated makka to the plaintiff-firm. On these allegations the plaintiff averred that the defendant had committed a breach of the contract and claimed damages to the extent of Es. 6,845-0-6. The plaintiff further pleaded that the contract was concluded in Ratlam and the payment in respect of the goods was also to be made in Ratlam and, therefore, the Ratlam Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant has admitted the contract. According to the defendant-firm, the offer was made by the plaintiff himself on phone; that the offer was accepted by the firm in Ramganj and the payment was also to be made in Ramganj; and that, therefore, the Ratlam Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) THE Civil Judge, First Class, Ratlam, held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was the defendant who made the offer from Ramganj and this offer was accepted by the plaintiff in Ratlam and that, therefore, the contract was concluded in Ratlam. He also found that the payment was to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant at Ramganj. But according to him as the contract was made at the place where the offer was accepted, namely, Ratlam, the suit had been properly filed in his Court, The defendant firm has now come up in revision to this Court.