AMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO LTD Vs. S SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application which is directed against an order of the Sub -Registrar Munsiff Jammu, dated nil arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs.171/ - which the plaintiff claimed as the price of some articles which, according to him were entrusted by him to the defendant against receipt Nos: 3768 and 3769 to be delivered to the plaintiff at Jammu. The plaintiff has alleged in his plaint that the defendant Transport Company failed to deliver the said articles to him at Jammu. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the present suit in the Court of the Sub -Registrar Jammu.

(2.) ON a plea raised by the defendant that the Jammu Court had no jurisdiction, the trial Court struck the following issue: - "Has this Court no jurisdiction to entertain the suit - The defendant has based this plea on a printed note, which finds place in the receipts. The note runs as follows: - All disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Courts." "The defendant pleads that in presence of this note -in the receipts the Jammu Court has no jurisdiction and that the suit should have been brought in the Amritsar Court. The trial Court has found that this note has been unilaterallly incorporated in the receipts and the plaintiff has never agreed to it and as such it would not amount to a contract and therefore, it was the Jammu Court which had jurisdiction in the matter. I think there is force in this observation of the trial Court. An entry in the receipt which is executed by the defendant can never be binding upon the person to whom the receipt is issued unless that person by word or deed expressly indicates his acceptance. This has not been proved or even alleged by the defendants. As such the entry cannot bind the plaintiff in any way. The defendants learned counsel has drawn my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rai v. Union of India, S AIR 1955 J & K 26 A. In this judgment it has been laid down that: - "An agreement between the parties to a contract to the effect that the suit concerning disputes arising between them on the basis of that contract should be instituted in one only out of two competent Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter is valid and enforceable and is not void under S. 28." This judgment was referred to before the trial Court also. I agree with the trial Court that the facts on which the above judgment is based are different from the facts of the present case. In S AIR 1955 J & K 26 A there was an agreement entered into by the parties according to which they had agreed to institute all suits in a particular Court of competent jurisdiction to the conclusion of another competent Court, but in the present case there is no stipulation between the parties to bring the present suit in one of the competent Courts having jurisdiction. All that we have in the present case is that all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Courts.

(3.) THE applicants learned counsel has, besides the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above, cited the following rulings: - Musaji Lukmanji v. Durga Dass, AIR 1946 Lah 57 B, Continental Drug Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Chemoids & Industries Ltd., Cal., S AlR 1955 Cal 161 C, Chittaranjan Guha v. Parul Rani Nandi, AIR 1946 Cal 112 D, Beni Pershad v. Narayan Glass Works, Makhanpur, AIR 1949 Ajmer 19 E. In all these judgments the principle has been laid down that an agreement between the parties to a contract to the effect that a suit concerning, a dispute arising between them on the basis of a contract should be instituted in only one out of two competent courts having territorial jurisdiction over the subject -matter of that suit, is a valid contract. But in the present case even assuming that the note in the receipts was entered there with the consent of the plaintiff, yet the other condition that both the Courts, out of which preference has been given to one must be competent Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the subject -matter of the suit is missing. In this case, the cause of action arose either at Srinagar where the goods were delivered to the defendant or at Jammu where the goods had to be returned to the plaintiff. Amritsar Courts have no territorial jurisdiction over this dispute. It is a well -settled principle of law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a Court, which has no jurisdiction. The validity of an agreement by which the parties prefer one of the two Courts depends upon the fact that both the Courts must have Jurisdiction in deciding the matter. But this is not the case here. Under these circumstances, I do not find any force in this revision application which is rejected. The parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.