GOEL ROADWAYS Vs. SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 13450/- was decreed. The short question that has been raised in the present appeal, as has been gathered from the admitting order on 1st April, 1980, "Whether in view of the agreement between the parties the Courts at Yamuna Nagar had the jurisdiction to try the suit." Briefly, the facts are that a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants-appellant for transportation of heavy engineering goods from Yamuna Nagar to Shirol. As per the contract, the plaintiff respondents were to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per truck to the defendants-appellant for supply of heavy machinery to Shirol. The transportation was to be done within a period of 10 days from the date of loading and in case the goods were not delivered at its destination then Rs. 100/- per day per truck was to be charged by the plaintiffs as penalty from the Transporter. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the appellant - defendants were bound to make the delivery of the machinery goods at the site at Shirol on 26.7.1971 and 27.7.1971 but the same were not delivered by the transporter - appellants. Thus, after many days another transporter had to be engaged to deliver the goods and thus the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 13,450/-. Hence the present suit was filed in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jagadhri. The respondents raised a preliminary issue that as per the agreement, all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Calcutta. V.D. Tripathi, PW-10 has stated that the entire transaction was entered between the parties at Yamuna Nagar and the contract was also signed at Yamuna Nagar, which is Exhibit PW-10/1. It was pleaded on behalf of the appellants that in the agreement, there was a condition that the Courts in Calcutta City alone shall have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. However, as noticed earlier, the agreement between the parties was signed at Yamuna Nagar and all the transactions entered into between the parties took place at Yamuna Nagar. Moreover, a perusal of Exhibit PW-10/1 shows that there was no such condition that the Courts at Calcutta city alone shall have the jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties. Thus as the contract was entered into between the parties at Yamuna Nagar and there was no stipulation in Exhibit PW-10/1 that the Courts at Calcutta city alone would have the jurisdiction to decide the disputes arising between the parties. There was no bar of jurisdiction for the Courts at Yamuna Nagar to try the suit.

(2.) Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.