A decision of a court having pecuniary jurisdiction, even if it does not have territorial jurisdiction, can operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law. The petitioner herein filed S. C. No. 2602 of 1950 in the Court of Small Causes madras for recovery of the prices of goods supplied by him to the respondent herein. The respondent filed S. C. No. 586 of 1950 in the court of the District munsif of Bezwada against the petitioner herein, for recovery of a sum of rs. 82-2-3 being godown charges, railway freight, demurrage etc. , paid by him.

( 2 ) ON the application of the petitioner, the suit filed in Bezwada was transferred to the court of Small Causes Madras and numbered as suit No. 2013 of 1952. Both the suits were tried together. The Small Cause Judge held that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit No. 2602 of 1950 as the cause of action had arionly in Vijayawada and he directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper court. In the suit which was transferred he held that the respondent was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 20-12-3 by way of freight and demurrage charges. The basis of the decree was that the respondent had rightly rejected the goods as they were not in accordance with the goods agreed to be sold. The petitioner thereupon presented the plaint in the Sub court Vijayawada on 13-6-1952 and it was numbered as S. C. No. 370 of 1952. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent herein that the decision in S. C No. 586 of 1950 D. M. C. Vijayawada which was registered as S. C. 2013 of 1952 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras operated as res judicata. The Subordinate Judge upheld the plea and dismissed the suit. The petitioner has consequently filed the Civil Revision Petition to this court.

( 3 ) THE only question that has to be decided, is, whether the decision of the small Cause Judge, Madras in S. C. No. 2013 of 1952, operates as res judicata or not. As the Small Cause Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain s. C. No. 2602 of 1950, there was no validly instituted suit on the file of that court. It was presented in the court of the Subordinate Judge Vijayawada on 13-6-1952. As held in Ramaswami Aiyer vs. Veerarayan Raja1 the presentation of the plaint to a court which has no jurisdiction to try the suit cannot be said to be the institution of the suit, even though the plaint had been accepted as being in order and registered. It was only when the plaint was presented to the Sub court at Vijayawada on 13-6-1952 that the suit must be taken to have been instituted. By that date, there was the decision of the Small Cause Judge, madras in S. C. No. 2013 of 1952 holding that the petitioner herein had committed the breach of the contract and that the respondent was entitled to reject the goods. It is well established that the expression "former suit" under section 11 C. P. C. means a previously decided suit-vide Mulla s Civil Procedure code (12th edition, Vol. I page 38 ). So, that decision would operate as res judicata under section 11 C. P. C. as it was a decision rendered between the same parties in a former suit.

( 4 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is, whether the Small cause Judge Madras was competent to try S. C. No. 586 of 1950 which was transferred to that court under section 24 C. P. C. to be tried along with S. C. No. 2602 of 1950. Venkata Subba Rao J. construed the terms of section 24 c. P. G. in Rajagopala Pandarathar and others vs. Thirupathia Pillai and held at page 425 that in regard to suits competency should not be understood in th,e sense of territorial or local competency. The same view was taken by the allahabad High Court in Kishore Lal v. Balakrishnan. At page 661 Sulaiman c. J. delivering the judgment held as follows :"the same words "competent to try the suit" occur in section 11. Civil Procedure Code as also section 15. It is quite clear that for purposes of res judicata it is not necessary that the two courts must have concurrent territorial jurisdiction which depends entirely on th