ASHOK KHICH Vs. D.P. JESWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed, inter alia, against the Petitioner in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, claiming a sum of Rs. 28,483.00 jointly and severally against 6 persons who were impleaded as Defendants in the case. An issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court was framed in the suit and the same was taken up as a preliminary issue. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has decided the issue in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 6 has assailed the same in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) AS it is Defendant No. 6 alone who has come up to this Court, it would be enough if averments made in the plaint (sic) particularly to him are taken note of. The case of the Plaintiff is that he entered into contract with Defendant No. 1 on 5.9.1974 to supply, two tonnes of Titanium Dioxide to dispatch the same by road to Ledo via Tinsukia. For this purpose, the Plaintiff contacted Defendant No. 4 who is a carrier, Defendant No. 5 being its Manager. The Plaintiff met this Defendant on 5.9.74 itself when he was told that due to heavy floods, direct road communication to Assam was suspended temporarily and therefore all consignments would be stored at Madras godown for a few days till road communication to Assam would be resumed. While the Plaintiff was at Trivandrum, where he had gone to enter into the contract, he met Defendant No. 6 in the hotel where he was putting up and developed some acquaintance with him as he was also a Hindi speaking gentleman. On 9.9.74, the Plaintiff requested this Defendant to be kind to take care of Plaintiff's consignments which would be stored at Madras for a few days in the godown of Defendant No. 4 and to see that the same are stored well and are dispatched to Assam. The request was friendly. Subsequently, the Plaintiff knew that the consignments were sent only up to Madras, and not to Ledo. At Madras, Defendant No. 6 took delivery of the consignments for onward dispatch to Assam but the game was not done. The Plaintiff, therefore entered into correspondence with Defendant No. 6 who concocted a "fairy tale" that he had been authorised by the former to take delivery of the consignments to hand -over the same to some other parties in liquidation of the loan taken by the Plaintiff. Several attempts were made to recover the price of the goods, but all went in vain following which the present suit was filed. Relying on the above averments relating to the Petitioner, it is contended by Shri Barua that the Court at Dibrugarh had no jurisdiction to try the case in as much as it is Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would determine the question of territorial jurisdiction relating to the case of the Plaintiff against the Petitioner, and the Court at Dibrugarh is not one which is contemplated by Section 19 which reads:

(3.) TO satisfy me about the applicability of Section 19 Shri Barua has urged that in so far as Defendant No. 6 is concerned, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that he had -entered into any contract with him in as much as from the averments made in the plaint it is quite clear that this Defendant had made only a request to look after the consignments of the Plaintiff during the short period these were to be stored at Madras. He, therefore, urges that the liability of Defendant No. 6, if at all, was not contractual but tortuous, and so it was a case of some wrong done to the consignments of Plaintiffs. This is not challenged by Shri Yadav. It has therefore to be seen whether to realise the compensation for the wrong done to the consignments, the Court of Assistant District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the Plaintiff reside, can be said to be a competent Court.