LAKHPAT RAI HUKUM CHAND Vs. CHHEDI RAM RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed thus revision against the order dated 9-4-1977 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur in money suit No. 137 of 1974 holding that the court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to state the relevant facts from the plaint. The plaintiff opposite party is a registered firm dealing in wholesale grain business at Siliguri in the district of Darjeeling. The defendant is also a registered firm dealing in similar business at Sona Mandi in the district of Sangrur in the State of Punjab. A contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was entered into in October, 1974, through a middle man of Siliguri whereby the defendant contracted to supply about 1400 bags of maize, by local purchase to the plaintiff. It is also the plaintiff's case that under the terms of contract after making purchase the defendant would despatch "goods to Barauni railway station on the North Eastern Railway and the relative R/R and hundi were to be sent to the Punjab National Bank, Waini drawn against M/s. Malik Singh Amrik Singh of Waini who had been appointed as a commission" agent of the plaintiff for getting the supply of the said goods on behalf of the plaintiff after honouring the hundis drawn by the defendant against the goods and relative R/Rs and hundis were to be taken delivery of from the said Bank on payment of the bill." It is also stated that M/s. Malik Singh Amrik Singh as commission agent of the plaintiff had to retire the hundi as settled between the plaintiff and the said firm and after sale of the goods in Waini they were to submit accounts to the plaintiff. These facts were fully known to the defendant who had agreed to carry out the same.

(3.) After notice of the suit the defendant appeared but before any written statement was filed, the defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court by filing a petition. In that petition it has been stated that the suit is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In that petition it has been alleged that on perusal of the plaint it is clear that the suit is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the plaintiff should have filed the suit in the Punjab court. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid application asserting that the suit could be tried where it has been filed.