MANOHAR LAL Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI NOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal under O. XLIII r. l C. P. C. against the order dated July 26, 1971 passed by Additional District Judge No, 1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 42 of 1968 directing the return of the plaint under O. VII r. 10 C. P. C.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these:

(3.) BEFORE I proceed to examine the correctness of the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, let me take note of the relevant averments made in the plaint having bearing on the question of jurisdiction. In para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the letter (Ex. 4) dated July 30, 1966 by which the acceptance of the tender was communicated was a counter offer, which was sent by post to the plaintiff and it was received at Jodhpur. In para 13 of the plaint, reference of letter No. 5642 dated October 24,1966 has been made and the facts stated therein have been disputed. In para 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the Court at Jodhpur where the suit has been instituted has jurisdiction to hear it, for, the letter (Ex. 4) dated July 30, 1966 was a counter offer, which was accepted by the plaintiff at Jodhpur and that the entire goods were delivered to the Railway at Jodhpur and that the Railway Receipts were endorsed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff at Jodhpur. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose at Jodhpur when he received the letter (Ex. 4) dated July 30, 1966 which was a counter offer and when the folding chairs and tables were delivered to the Railway at Jodhpur. In reply to paras 16 and 18 of the plaint, the defendant has stated that the offer made by the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant at Nohar and, therefore, a binding contract came into existence at Nohar. It was further pleaded that the goods were to be delivered at Nohar and the contract was to be performed at Nohar and, therefore, no part of cause of action arose at Jodhpur. In these circumstances, it was contended that the Court at Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.