KRISHNA STORES Vs. SODORMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant against a concurrent decision. Plaintiff 's case is that it was a registered dealer at Kantabanji in the district of Balangir in Orissa. Defendant no, 1 is the proprietor of a firm (Defendant No. 3) at Rajim in the district of Raipur in Madhya Pradesh. On 28 -3 -1966, Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 2 (the commission agent) contracted and purchased 90 quintals of til oil cakes. The bill amount was payable at Kantabanji through bank. On 4 -4 -1966 the Plaintiff despatched the goods from Meramandali to Rajim. The bail, R/R and hundi were also sent through the State Bank of India, Kantabanji Branch for collection. On 11 -4 -1966 the bill was presented by the Plaintiff for payment, but payment was refused by Defendant No. 1. On 25 -4 -1966, the State Bank of India, Kantabanji Branch returned the hundi to the Plaintiff with 'Unpaid ' advice. So, it is alleged that the Defendant No. 1 committed breach of contract by not taking delivery of goods and paying the bill amount. Plaintiff then resold the goods and sustained a loss of Rs. 1400/ - which has been claimed as damages in the suit.

(2.) IN the written statement, Defendant No. 1 has contended that one of the partners of the Plaintiff -firm, to whom Defendant No. 1 can only identify, along with Defendant No. 2 came to Rajim and represented to sell two wagons of til oil cakes. In pursuance of the contract, one wagon was actually despatched from Balangir to Raipur and the other one was ready to be despatched from Meramandali Defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 1500/ - to the Plaintiff and it was agreed that the aforesaid amount would be adjusted towards the bill amount. Plaintiff was informed over telephone to draw the hundi and send the R/R through bank to Defendant No. 1. It was agreed that Rs. 500/ - would be deducted from the bill for the first wagon and the balance amount would be adjusted towards the bill for the second wagon. In fact, a sum of Rs. 500/ - was deducted from the bill for the first wagon, but the Plaintiff, it is alleged, did not deduct the balance amount of Rs. 100/ - from the bill in respect of the second wagon. When the goods were unloaded at Raipur, Defendant No. 1 found the same to be of inferior quality and so he intimated his unwillingness to the Plaintiff to honour the hundi.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that even assuming that the contract was entered into at Rajim in Madhya Pradesh, the Court at Titilagarh has jurisdiction to try the suit, inasmuch as the repudiation of the contract which was intimated by Defendant No. 1, was received by the Plaintiff at Kantabanji, within the jurisdiction of the Court at Titilagarh. In this connection, he has relied on Ext. 7, the telegram, admittedly sent by Defendant no, 1 and the hundi returned by the State Bank of India, Kantabanji Branch intimating the Plaintiff that the hundi was not honoured by Defendant No. 1. The learned Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the contract was entered into between the parties at Rajim in Madhya Pradesh and, as such the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Apparently, it is not a suit for specific performance of contract, or, in other words, to enforce the contract. This is undisputedly a case for damages for breach of contract. The fact that there was a contract and the same has been repudiated by Defendant No. 1 is not disputed. There is no dispute about the fact, as evident from materials on record, that the repudiation, as alleged by Defendant No. 1, was made at Rajim and the same was received by the Plaintiff at Kantabanji and this intimation was by means of Ext. 7 and Ext. 2. The legal position is that in a suit for damages for breach of contract, the renunciation of the contract is to be complete only when communicated to the other party and the other party receives intimation of the same. Reliance has been placed in this respect on a Division Bench decision Dhanraj Mills Limited Liability Co. v. Narsingh Prasad Boobna and Ors., A.I.R. 1949 Pat. 279, wherein it has been held: