AUTO ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. BANSAL TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is so preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dismissing the Money Suit No. 23/1985 on contest for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) Shri S. Deb, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.M. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are heard.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, in nutshell it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are fit to be set aside specifically on the ground that the learned Court-below erred to decide the issue relating to his jurisdiction properly and that the said Court: had the territorial jurisdiction in connection, with this matter. Giving a short history of this case it is also pointed out that the said Money Suit was so filed by the appellant-plaintiff for the recovery of loss as to compensate the appellant- plaintiff either supplying the finished goods for 44.015 M.T. raw materials or paying the price of the same because of his claim there was short supply of the finished product so made by the sister concern of respondent No. 1 figuring as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 which was a breach of oral contract because of the contract so being made by the appellant first of all with respondent No. 1 for supply of raw materials which was so supplied to the extent of 283.550 M.T. (Steel), the work for the finishing of the same as per the direction of the plaintiff-appellant was done by the rest of the respondents and when such finished goods were so sent to Agartala that weight only 239.535 M.T. and since (there was shortage, the claim was for compensation relating to the balance coming to 44.015 M.T. finished goods. It is also the case of the plaintiff- appellant coming from the mouth of his counsel Mr. S. Deb that the transaction with regard to the supply of raw materials with that of the finished product continued from 22.1.1979 to 30.9.83 and when the short supply of the finished product was so detected, after receiving the same at the other hand i.e. Agartala, cause of action arose for filing such suit. In this connection reference is made particularly to Ext- 3 series which are the bills and vouchers said to have been given by the respondents to the appellants and the amount as submitted also paid. According to Shri Deb, learned counsel contractual relationship (oral) was for supplying die steel raw material with respondent No. 1 and sister concerned of respondent No. 1 figuring as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were to supply finished goods to the appellant at Agartala. The said suit bearing No. 23/85 so filed was valued for the purpose of valuation at Rs. 3 lakhs for which Court fee was paid and the compensation from the respondents also got claimed for the short supply of finished products detailed above.