SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Cal) 206

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA AND ARUN KUMAR JANAH, JJ.

Oghadmal Choudhury - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr - Opposite Parties
Civil Rule no. 1843 of 1971
Decided on: August 4, 1972

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
S. Tibrewal, P.L. Khaitan and M.P. Chowdhury for the petitioner
Ajoy Kumar Basu for the opposite parties

Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure affects the special jurisdiction conferred by section 80 of the Railways Act.

Headnote:

RAILWAYS ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 80 - AMENDMENT IN 1961 - SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF GOODS - CAN BE INSTITUTED IN COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER PLACE WHERE GOODS BOOKED, PLACE OF DESTINATION OR PLACE WHERE LOSS OCCURRED - SECTION 20(C) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AFFECTS SPECIAL JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SECTION 80 OF RAILWAYS ACT.

Fact of the Case:

A suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for short delivery of goods. The goods were booked from Chanda Fort Railway Station on the Central Railway for being carried to Ramkristopur, a station in South Eastern Railway. The consignor and the consignee were the same. The railway receipt was endorsed and delivered to the petitioner against payment in Calcutta. The Third Bench of the Court of Small Causes held that endorsement of the railway receipt against payment did not constitute part of the cause of action and therefore, the Court of Small Cause had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes rejected the application for revision on the ground that the application under section 38 was not maintainable as there had been no adjudication of disputes but the plaint had merely been returned for presentation to the proper court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court observed that section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables a court to entertain a suit if a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, affects the special jurisdiction conferred by the amended provisions of section 80 of the Railways Act.

Issues: Whether the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta had jurisdiction to try the suit for short delivery of goods.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that section 80 of the Railways Act, as amended in 1961, provides that a suit for compensation for loss of goods may be instituted in a court having jurisdiction over the place where the goods were booked, the place of destination of the goods, or the place where the loss occurred. This special jurisdiction is affected by section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enables a court to entertain a suit if a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta did not have jurisdiction to try the suit.

Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule but made no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Mitra, C.J.

This Rule is directed against an order dated the 12th January, 1971 of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta arising out of an application against an order dated the 3rd May, 1968 passed by the Third Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Suit No. 116 of 1966. On the 24th February, 1963, 167 bags of Arhar were tendered at Chanda Fort Rly. Station on the Central Railway for being carried to Ramkristopur, a station in South Eastern Railway. The consignor and the consignee were the same. The railway receipt issued by the Railways was endorsed and delivered to the petitioner against payment of the Punjab National Bank Limited, Brabourne Road Branch, Calcutta. There was a short delivery of the goods and the petitioner, on January 13, 1966 instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for Rs. 1,349.56.

2. The first question that arose for determination before the Court of Small Causes, was with regard to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that by reason of the endorsement of the railway receipt against payment in Calcutta, the Court of Small Causes bad jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Third Bench of that court held that endorsement of the railway receipt against payment did not constitute part of the cause of action and therefore, the Court of Small Cause had no jurisdiction to try the suit the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court this judgment of the Third Bench was delivered on the 3rd May, 1968. Then an application was made by the plaintiff on the 10th May, 1968 under section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for the matter being heard by the Full Bench. On the 11th January 1971 the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes rejected the application on the ground that the application under section 38 was not maintainable as there had been no adjudication of disputes but the plaint had merely been returned for presentation to the proper court. It is against this order of the Full Bench that the present Rule has been obtained.

3. The application for revision was made on the 17th June, 1971. The Rule was issued on the 7th July, 1971. On the 10th May, 1972 an application was made under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay, On the 11th May, 1972 the matter came up for hearing before Mr. Justice A.K. Sinha but His Lordship referred it to a Division Bench. The reason stated by His Lordship is that there are two decisions of two learned Judges of this Court reported in (1) 57 CWN 167 (Harimohan v. Dominion of India) and (2) AIR 1959 Calcutta 563 (Alliance Assurance Co. v. Union of India) which have taken the view that endorsement of the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration furnishes cause of action and the plaintiff is entitled to sue within the jurisdiction of that court in which such an endorsement was effected. But, Mr. Justice Sinha points out, there is another Single Bench decision reported in (3) AIR 1960 Calcutta. 458 (Fushraj Thanmell v. Union of India) in which a different view was taken. The latter case was followed in a decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (4) AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 282 (Singamsetti Ramarao v. Union of India). In the Andhra Pradesh case it was laid down that endorsement of a railway receipt by the consignor in favour of a third party would not constitute a part of the cause of action.

4. Owing to these differences of opinion, Mr. Justice A.K. Sinha has referred the matter to the Division Bench.

5. We are of opinion that the cases referred to above, dealt with the relevant provisions of the Railways Act prior to their amendment in 1961. Section 80 of the Railways Act before its amendment in 1961 ran thus:

"Suits for compensation for injury to through-booked traffic:

Notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of a railway administration with respect to





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top