(1.) The only question argued in this civil revision petition relates to the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the suit. The issue has been found for the plaintiff and the defendant has preferred this revision petition.
(2.) The suit was for damages for breach of contract for delivery of certain perforated steel Sheets according to specification to the plaintiff who is a merchant trading at Bezwada. The defendants who are carrying on business at Bombay are the representatives of a Belgian firm of steel manufacturers. The plaintiff averred that the defendants broke the contract by failing to deliver the goods and they sued in the District Munsif's Court at Bezwada alleging that their cause of action arose in part at Bezwada. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action arose at Bezwada. The issue was tried by consent of parties as a preliminary issue and the letters by means of which the contract was concluded have been included in the record. The lower Court took the view that the indent form which the defendants finally sent to the plaintiff to be duly completed and returned after the specifications and quotations had been exchanged must be taken to be the offer and the plaintiff's posting it duly signed and completed was the acceptance and that therefore the contract was concluded at Bezwada. The learned District Munsif was further of opinion that the Court had jurisdiction as the goods were to be received finally at Bezwada via Madras.
(3.) Mr. Rajagopala Aiyangar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the view taken by the learned District Munsif was unsustainable. He contended that the plaintiff's return of the indent form duly completed and signed was merely a customary formality which the defendants required their customers to observe in such cases, and that the contract was really concluded by the defendants telegram from Bombay accepting the plaintiff's order for the goods at the price quoted by the defendants. Mr. Rajagopala Aiyangar further submitted that the correspondence showed that the contract was on c.i.f., terms and that the shipping documents were to be delivered against payment at Bombay, while the harbour at which the goods were to be unloaded was Madras. The place of delivery, he therefore argued must be taken to be either Bombay or Madras and not Bezwada. The respondent's learned Counsel Mr. Seshagiri Rao did not attempt to repel these contentions but sought to support the decision of the Court below on the ground that if the telegram was to be treated as the acceptance, its receipt by the plaintiff was a part of the cause of action and as this was admittedly at Bezwada, the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20 Clause (c) of the Civil P. C.. The decision of Ramesam, J. in Venkata Reddi V/s. Nataraja Setti , was cited in support of this contention. After referring to the decisions holding that in suits arising out of contracts a part of the cause of action must be deemed to arise where the letter containing the offer was received, the learned Judge held that the receipt of acceptance when the contract was complete was a part of the contract "there being no reason why acceptance should be in a worse position than offer". The learned Judge distinguished the case of Clarke Brothers V/s. Knowles (1918) 1 K.B. 128, by pointing out that it did not appear from the affidavit on which the application was based that any letter of acceptance was received at West Hartlepool and the case in Kamisetti Subbiah v. Katha Venkataswamy (1903) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 355, by observing that no attempt was made there to support the judgment under appeal on the ground that the letter of acceptance was received in Kurnool.