P. N. MOOKERJEE, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against an order of the lower appellate Court, holding that the institution or the instant suit at the Howrah Court was proper and the learned trial Judge was in error in directing return of the plaint for its presentation to the Court at Salem.

( 2 ) THE suit is one wherein the plaintiff-Opposite Party No. 1 claims damages for loss of certain goods against the two defendants--defendant No. 1, the party who supplied the goods and defendant No. 2, the Union of India, representing the two Railways over which the goods in question were carried -- there being ultimately misdelivery in the instant case. There is a contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, under which the parties agreed that all suits, arising on or out of the contract, would be instituted in the Court at Salem. It is true that the instant suit could have been instituted either at Salem of at Howrah under Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly, arose in part in both the places. It was, therefore, a case, where two Courts had concurrent Jurisdiction and, in such a case, it was open to the parties to make a choice,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document