P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this Commercial Cause, the plaintiff Co. Associated Power Co. Ltd. is suing Ram Taran Roy, carrying on business under the name and style of Roy Dutta and Co. for the recovery of Rs. 7460. 06 P as the price for the supply of electrical energy.

( 2 ) THERE were a number of points raised in the Written Statement but the issues have now been considerably narrowed, in the circumstances, I am just about to mention. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant, raised only the following issue: "has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit on the ground that this is a suit not for goods supplied but for electricity consumed?"

( 3 ) MR. Sinha, appearing for the defen dant, abandoned all other contentions raised in the Written Statement and sub ject to the above issue, he admitted all other facts pleaded in the plaint. It is also to be recorded that Mr. Sinha for the defendant does not contest either the content or the amounts and figures plead ed in the plaint.

( 4 ) THE only question for decision now in this suit is to determine the point whether electricity is within the meaning of "goods" used in Clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. In other words, the main contention is that it is the City Civil Court only which has jurisdiction to try this suit and not the Original Side of this High Court. Clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, inter alia, reads as follows:--"subject to entry 1 and entry 2, suits and proceedings exceeding five thousand rupees in value.-***arising out of transactions of merchants and traders relating to the buying or the selling of goods or relating to the construction of mercantile documents. "

( 5 ) IT may be recorded here that by a written agreement dated 30-7-57 the plaintiff agreed to supply and the defendant agreed to take electrical energy to be used by the defendant in the defendant's colliery at Kajoragram in the district of Burdwan. The overriding consideration in this agreement is that it is a purely commercial transaction for supply of electricity to a colliery.

( 6 ) SECTION 5 (ii) of the City Civil Court Act provides that "subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3), (4) and of Section 9, the City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not exceeding ten thousand rupees in value. "

( 7 ) IT is contended by Mr. Sinha that as the claim is only for Rs. 7460. 06 P. the proper Court with proper jurisdiction was the City Civil Court in this case. In answer, Mr. Goho, learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied on Clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act as quoted above to say that this Court has jurisdiction as it is a suit exceeding Rs. 5000/ -. The legal debate has centered lastly round the meaning of the word "goods" in Clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act. According to Mr. Goho, learned counsel for the plaintiff, electricity is "goods" and according to Mr. Sinha, counsel for the defendant, it is not "goods" within the meaning of that clause in the City Civil Court Act.

( 8 ) I shall now briefly examine the different arguments, advanced by Mr. Sinha, appearing for the defendant. His first argument naturally is that the word "goods" in its ordinary and common connotation, cannot and should not include something like electricity which is not tangible and just only current or energy. If the distinction that this argument tries to make is, between matter and energy then perhaps the answer in ' modern science of physics will be that matter is energy and energy is matter and therefore electricity according to the modern notions of physics can very well come within the expression "goods. "

( 9 ) MR. Sinha, thereafter relied on the State list, being list 2 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, items. 53 and 54 where the following expressions occur:-- ''53.-- Taxes on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document