A bill of lading containing the words "subject to [a particular court's] jurisdiction" does not, in the absence of a specific contract or necessary implication, confer exclusive jurisdiction on that court and exclude the jurisdiction of other courts where a part of the cause of action has arisen.

A. V. KRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry for recovery of a sum of Rupees 1533. 42 by way of damages.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a registered firm doing business in pulses and grains at Rajahmundry. The defendant is also a registered firm with its office at Calcutta. On the plaintiffs indent, the defendant supplied blackgram to the plaintiff as per the bill Ex. A-1, dated 3-7-1967. The consignment was received at Rajahmundry by the plaintiff which found it in a very bad condition and unfit for consumption. The defendant was duly intimated by phone call on 27-1-1967 about this. The defendant gave a reply stating that the matter would be looked into. As the defendant took no action in the matter, the plaintiff had to file the suit for recovery of the amount claimed by way of compensation for the loss sustained by it.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant had filed a written statement which was adopted by the other defendants. The contention in main was that the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was always subject to the jurisdiction of the court at Calcutta and that therefore the Sub-Court at Rajahmundry had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court. On these pleadings, the Court below framed a point for consideration as follows:--"whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and as to whether the plaint has to be returned for Presentation to the proper court. "the lower Court opined that the plaint allegations did not disclose in clear terms that the contract was concluded at Rajahmundry and that the only averment in the plaint on that aspect was that on the indent of the plaintiff the defendant-firm supplied black-gram as per the bill Ex. A-1. Referring to Ex. A-1 the Court below pointed out that on the top of Ex. A-1 it was printed subject to Calcutta jurisdiction and that the whole action of the plaintiff rested upon Ex. A-1, which contains the note Subject to Calcutta Jurisdiction. The lower Court relied upon the decisions reported in M. B. T. Co. , Madras v. A. Narasimharao, (1968) 1 Andh WR 424 and Libra Mining Works v. Laladota Bros Bombay, (1962) I Andh WR 165, = (AIR 1962 Andh Pra 542 ). In the learned Judges opinion these rulings were on all fours to the case before him. He therefore directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court holding that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) IN this revision petition by the plaintiff firm it is contended by the learned counsel that Ex. A-1 is not the contract between the parties and that the delivery of the goods was to be made at Rajahmundry and in fact has been so made and the whole of the cause of action to claim damages has arisen at Rajahmundry where the goods were taken delivery of on the facts of the case. He submitted that the reliance placed upon the two rulings above referred to by the Court below is absolutely incorrect. The cases contained facts which are wholly dissimilar to the facts of the present case and were certainly not on all fours with the facts of the case.

( 5 ) THE two questions that fall for consideration in this case are:--"whether the whole or any part of the cause of action for the plaintiffs claim arose within the jurisdiction of the Rajahmundry Sub-Court; and (2) Even if it has arisen, whether the words contained on the top of Ex. A-1 viz. subject to Calcutta Jurisdiction exclude the jurisdiction of the Rajahmundry Sub-Court to try the suit. "

( 6 ) SO far as the cause of action, according to the plaintiff as stated in paragraph 10 is concerned, it arose on the date of indent for the goods on 3-7-1967 which is the date of the bill Ex. A-1 and on the date the goods were taken delivery of by the plaintiff-firm and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document