CHIRANJILAL Vs. SUMER OIL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the defendant Chiranjilal against whom the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,143/10/- as damages for breach of contract. The contract was entered into between the parties at Udaipur on 14-7-1949 for the supply of 'til' seeds to the plaintiff. The terms of the contract which are relevant for the purposes of the case at this stage are as follows : 1. Railway Receipt would be sent through Bank to Kishangarh and the purchaser would at once take delivery of it.

(2.) Seller is responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared. 2. The defendant raised an objection in the lower Court that the Jaipur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property was to be delivered at Ratlam and the contract was entered into at Udaipur. The suit could therefore be filed either at Udaipur or at Ratlam. The plaintiff replied that the seller was responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared and sent to the plaintiff at Kishangarh who was to take delivery of it on payment of the balance of price of goods. The part of the cause of action therefore arose at Kishangarh and the Jaipur Court had jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, Jaipur District came to the conclusion that by virtue of the term of contract the Railway Receipt was to be delivered at Kishangarh and the price was to be paid there, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the lower Court and he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against this judgment of the learned District Judge, the defendant has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the applicant that according to the terms of the contract the delivery was to be given 'bilti cut' at Ratlam which means F. O. R. Ratlam. He has argued that the delivery was thus to be given to the plaintiff at Ratlam and the contract on the side of the defendant would have been completed as soon as the goods were delivered to the railway authorities at Ratlam. As the goods were not so delivered a breach took place at Ratlam and so no part of the cause of action can be said to arise at Kishangarh. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that the railway receipt was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh against payment of the balance of the price and therefore, an important part of the cause of action was to arise at Kishangarh. Ruling reported in -- 'Lakshmipathi Naidu v. Mohamed Ghani', AIR 1947 Mad 83 has been cited in his support by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a ruling of the Lahore High Court reported in -- 'Amar Nath Shadilal v. Dhondusa Dhaktappa & Brothers', AIR 1941 Lah 223.