T MOTANDAS & CO Vs. L HAKUMAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants revision application and arises out of a suit instituted by plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 225/ -; Rs. 200/ - as the amount advanced for the purchase of beer and Rs. 25/ - on the basis of a Credit Note No. 47 dated 31 -12 -1950. The plaintiffs case was that they placed an order with Messrs. T. Motandas & Co., a firm having head office at Bombay and Sub -office at Jodhpur, for supply of ten boxes of beer. The order was placed with the firm at Bombay and Rs. 200/ -were advanced to the firm. The defendants did not supply the goods in time and there was a breach of the contract on their part and hence the plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of the amount advanced. It was further alleged that Rs. 25/ - were due from the defendants in connection with some previous transaction and a Credit Note was issued for the same by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that there was no breach of the contract on their part. They had supplied the goods and they were entitled to recover the balance price from the plaintiffs. The defendants denied having issued any credit note in favour of the plaintiffs. Lastly it was pleaded by the defendants that the Courts at Jammu had no jurisdiction to try the suit according to the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. The trial Court of Munsiff, 2nd class, Jammu raised a preliminary issue whether the suit was triable by the Jammu Courts or not. After considering the evidence led by the parties it came to the conclusion that the suit was triable by the Jammu Court. Against this order the defendants -have filed this revision application.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the plaintiffs placed an order with the firm at Bombay and signed the order form in which there is a clause "we agree to the conditions printed on reverse". Condition No. 5 at the back of this document Ex. P. 3 is "all disputes to be settled in Bombay Courts." It is argued that the parties had agreed that all disputes arising out of the contract will be settled by Courts in Bombay and not by Courts in Jammu. The trial Court was, therefore, wrong in holding that Jammu Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) WE have perused the document Ex. P. 3. There is a clear provision that the disputes arising -out of the contract will be settled by Courts in Bombay and the plaintiffs having signed the order form agreed to abide by the terms which appear on the reverse of the document Ex. P. 3. The counsel for the respondent has argued that the order was placed with the Jodhpur branch of the Bombay firm and not with the head office at Bombay and, therefore, Bombay Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the parties could not confer jurisdiction on Bombay Courts to try the suit by their special agreement. This contention appears to be without force. From the averments in the plaint it appears that the plaintiffs placed an order with the head office at Bombay and they treated the Bombay head office and the Jodhpur branch as one and the same concern. In the statement made by the plaintiff in the trial Court he had mentioned that the order was placed with Messrs. T. Motandass & Co. at their head office at Bombay. In view of the averment made in the plaint and the statement of the plaintiff it is clear that Bombay Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was triable either by Jammu Court or by a Bombay Court.