MANILAL Vs. MPVENKATACHALAPATHI IYER (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners ask the Court to revise, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by the respondent.

(2.) The respondent is a merchant carrying on business in Madura. The petitioners are merchants carrying on business in Bombay. On the 7 September, 1940, the respondent wrote to the petitioners offering to purchase 200 pounds of naphthalene at the price of Rs. 12- 8-0 per pound. On the 9 September, 1940, the petitioners replied making a counter offer. They were willing to supply the goods at the price of Rs. 13 a pound. By a letter dated 13th September, 1940, the respondent offered to buy 500 pounds of naphthalene at the rate quoted by the petitioners. This offer was accepted by the petitioners in a letter dated 14th September, 1940, and posted in Bombay.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as in his view part of the cause of action arose in Madura. He regarded the receipt of the letter in Madura from the petitioners as being part of the cause of action. This opinion is opposed to at least five Bench decisions of this Court, two of which were quoted to him. He rejected them because of the observations of Patanjali Sastri, J., in a recent case, Sepulchre Bros. V/s. Kushala Das . The present petition came in the first instance before Horwill, J., who referred it to a Bench for decision.