( 1 ) THE present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 3,39,522. 39 against the defendants.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs have been carrying on business in brass art-wares in shop No. 96, Municipal Market, Janpath, New Delhi, under the name and style of plaintiff No. 2. Defendants, a partnership firm, are carrying on business as clearing, forwarding and shipping agents. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are enumerated in paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of the plaint which may be reproduced as follows:

"2. That the partner of the defendant firm visited the shop of the plaintiff s firm at 96, Municipal Market, Janpath, New Delhi. He agreed to accept the consignment of Brass Art-wares for transportation to Baltimore, U. S. A. , for Messrs Amin Merchants at 619, Mississipi Avenue, Silver Springs, MD. , U. S. A. The purchasers, Messrs Amin Merchants ordered the goods for sale on the eve of Christmas in 1983. The goods were thus to reach them before Christmas in the said year. The defendant instructed the plaintiff to deliver the consignment to Messrs Jaipur Golden Transport Company at Kamla Market, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. The plaintiff firm delivered the goods to Messrs Jaipur Golden Transport Company at Kamla Market, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, according to the instructions of the defendant firm through its partner. 3. That the goods valued at Rs. 1,59,751. 20p. as per plaintiffs invoice No. 1/786, dated October 6, 1983. The defendants neglected to ship the goods, belonging to the plaintiff to U. S. A. , in time before Christmas in the year 1983. The purchasers could not receive goods for sale on the eve of the Christmas in 1983. The plaintiff would have been entitled to earn Drawback, Cash incentives and also licence to import in lieu of her exported goods in case the defendants had shipped the goods to U. S. A. in time. 4. That later the plaintiff on the insistence of the defendants sent a draft No. B/c 442161/448 dated 21. 3. 1984 for Rs. 6,410. 00 on account of their alleged dock charges etc. 5. That the plaintiff sent a number of letters including their letters dated August 11, 1987, August 31, 1987, September 1, 1987 and September 15, 1987,whereby the Plaintiff requested the defendants again and again to return the goods to the plaintiff. It appears from the notice of the defendants through their Advocate, Shri Z. K. Mehta, dated October 16, 1987 that the defendants refused to return the goods to the plaintiff as they alleged to have disposed of her goods for Rs. 15,000. 00 in August, 1987. The defendants thus mis-appropriated the goods of the plaintiff. These goods valued at Rs. 1,59,751. 20p. as apparent from the invoice No. 1/786, dated October 6, 1983 sent by the plaintiff to the defendants.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs served the defendants with the notice dated November 3,1987 requesting them to return the goods to the plaintiffs or pay them Rs. 1,59,751. 20 as well as interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Defendants were duly served but they did not comply with the said notice. The principal amount as well as the interest as claimed by the plaintiffs are reiterated in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The cause of action, it is alleged, arose as the defendants failed to ship the goods in time and later on failed to return the goods belonging to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also alleged vide their notice dated October 16, 1987 that defendants have sold the goods illegally.

( 4 ) WRITTEN statement to the plaint was filed wherein, inter alia, the following preliminary objections were taken:

(A) that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs; (b) the suit is barred by law of limitation and (c) this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as neither any part of cause of action has arisen nor the defendants carry on business and work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. On merits it is contend