RAM BHAGAT SOMANI Vs. KANHAIYALAL JAINARAIN TAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is a firm carrying on business of commission agency at Poona and defendant No. 2 is a partner of the firm. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Jaipur.

(3.) THE defendant relied on some decisions of other courts in which a contrary view was taken but these decisions have, in my opinion, failed to consider the effect of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Soniram Jeetmull vs. R. D. Tata & Co. Ltd. (2 ). In that case, the appellants were sued in Rangoon by R. D. Tata. & Go. Ltd. , who had a business branch there, for payment of sums of money, due upon the failure of constituents to satisfy debts due to the latter, which sums the defendants had undertaken to make good to them, but the defendants, who carried on business in Calcutta, contended that they could not be sued for this money in Rangoon. THE transactions between these parties were a continuation of dealings which had existed for a number of years before the present plaintiffs became an incorporated company and had been carried on under a memorandum dated the 10th December, 1911, and signed in Calcutta. It is Cl. 2 of that contract that expressed Messrs. Jeetmull's obligation to pay in the present case, and it said that Messrs. Jeetmul were to make good any undisputed [claims that Messrs. Tata & Company might lose owing to the failure or suspension of payment of constituents. Accordingly, one point only arose, namely, whether the part of this contract relating to payment was performable by Messrs. Jeetmul in Rangoon. If it was, there was jurisdiction in the Court to entertain the suit and the objection of the appellants was rightly overruled.