RAMESHWAR Vs. JETHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Balotra, dated 6th August 1954 in suit No. 30/50.

(2.) The plaintiffs-appellants are Ramkaran, his son Bhanwarlal, Rameshwar and Ramrakh and the defendant respondent is Jethabhai son of Nensi Gujrati residing at Bombay. The case set out by the plaintiffs in their amended plaint is that the plaintiffs were carrying on business at Karachi and became displaced persons on the formation of Dominions of India and Pakistan. It was alleged that the defendant carried on business at Bombay under the name of Nensi Deosi and there was a branch of it at Karachi. This branch came to be closed on the formation of Dominions of India and Pakistan. It was alleged that on 20th September 1946 there was a contract between the parties by which it was agreed that the plaintiffs will cave delivery or 225 bags of Khopra at a certain rate to be delivered at the end of three months from the date of contract: It was alleged that the plaintiffs offered delivery on the due date which was said to be 3rd January 1947, but the defendant did not take delivery of the troods wherupon it was alleged that the plaintiffs became entitled to claim damages amounting to Rs. 5118/12/9 from the defendant. The suit was for recovery of this amount. The suit was instituted at Balotra in, the Court of District Tudee. Balotra by reference to Section 3 of the Rajasthan Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Ordinance. 1949 on the ground given in para 7 that the plaintiffs were displaced persons and lived at Balotra and therefore the court had jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Displaced Persons Ordinance, 1949.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs to be displaced persons. It was admitted that the defendant carried on business at Karachi in the name of Nensi Deosi, but it was pleaded that on the formation of Pakistan he became a displaced person and had begun to live at Bombay. The defendant denied having entered into the transaction as alleged by the plaintiffs, or that any delivery was offered and refused. The amount of damages claimed was also denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were the old residents of Balotra and were not displaced persons.