SURAJMAL Vs. HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Civil Judge, Baran.

(2.) IN an execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, the judgment-debtor raised an objection that he was a resident of Sironj, which is now in Madhya pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and, therefore, the Court at baran had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. The learned Civil Judge has referred the matter to this Court for decision under Section 125 (2) of the States reorganisation Act.

(3.) ON going through the record, it appears that suit No, 3 of 1952, which ended in a decree, was instituted by Surajmal, Ramgopal, and Rajmal, residents of chhipabarod in Rajas-than against Hiralal, Pannalal and Dhannalal, residents of sironj, on the allegations that 100 bags of maize were sent by the firm of the plaintiffs carrying on business at Chhipabarod on the 5th of December, 1950, to the defendants' firm at Sironj for sale and remittance of the sale proceeds to the plaintiffs. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the defendants did not comply with the instructions of the plaintiffs, and did not return the maize in spite of notice, and, therefore, they were responsible to pay the price thereof, which was claimed to be rs. 2. 650/ -. The plea of the defendants was that the maize had been received for sale, but had been seized by the Government in connection with a criminal case, and when it was released on 6th October 1951, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs to take back their maize, but they did not do so, and, there' fore, the defendants were not liable to pay any amount. The Civil Judge, Baran, after evidence, gave a decree for Rs. 2275/- on a finding that the defendants had committed default in carrying out the instructions of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the learned District Judge was of opinion that the non-sale was not due to any fault of the defendants, and, therefore, the decree was modified. The defendants were directed to return the 100 bags of maize received by the defendants to the plaintiffs, failing which they were made liable to pay Rs. 2275/- to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal urging that they were not bound to receive the goods which had all deteriorated in the meanwhile, and prayed for a money decree for the amount claimed. This appeal, which is appeal No. 23 of 1955, was filed on 17th January, 1955, and is still pending in the High Court. In the meanwhile, the decree-holders on 3lst March, 1955, presented an execution application that the defendants did not return the maize as directed by the decree of the District judge, and, therefore, they were liable to pay Rs. 2275/- as directed by the decree. In this execution application the defendants raised the objection of jurisdiction which has been referred to by the learned Civil Judge to this Court.