( 1 ) THE petitioner in both these Revision Applications is the Rajasthan Golden Transport Company Private Limited. Two suits being Regular Civil Suit Nos. 1265 and 1266 of 1973 were filed by the opponents against the petitioner in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. Both these suits were decreed by the learned trial Judge. The Petitoner had thereupon filed New Trial Application Nos. 50 and 51 of 1976 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. They were rejected. Hence these revision applications.

( 2 ) BOTH the aforesaid suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge and they were disposed of by a common judgment. Similarly both the New Trial Applications before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. As the points which arise in these Civil Revision Applications are common I also propose to dispose of both of them by a common judgment.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are like this. Opponent No. 2 Piramal Jwalaprasad and Brothers is a dealer in cloth at Ahmedabad. On or about 14 it wanted to send two bales of cotton piece goods to Sahranpur. It therefore approached the petitioner on 14-3-1970 and delivered the said two bales to it for the purpose of carrying the same by a motor lorry to Sahranpur. The petitioner accepted the same and prepared two separate consignment notes one in respect of each bale. The said goods were consigned to self and therefore in both the consignment notes name of consignee was shown as self. Both the consignment notes were prepared in triplicate and one copy of each was given to the consignor. According to the consignor the said bales were not delivered to the consignee at the place of destination nor were they returned to the consignor. It therefore after waiting for a reasonable time lodged a claim with the petitioner for Rs. 1 29 by a notice dated 7-5-1970 in respect of the goods consigned under consignment note No. 40751 and for Rs. 1 257 by a notice dated 7-5-1970 in respect of the goods consigned under consignment note No. 40750. The petitioner did not comply with the said notices. As both the consignments were sent at owners risk the consignor had got them insured with opponent No. 1 insurance company. The consignor therefore called upon the insurance company to make payment for the loss of the said goods. The insurance company made the payment; and thereupon the consignor issued letters of subrogation in favour of the insurance company. Thereafter. both the insurance company as plaintiff No. 1 and the consignor as plaintiff No. 2 filed the aforesaid two suits against the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner contested both the suits. It inter alia contended that in view of the specific agreement between it and the consignor only the Court at Delhi will have jurisdiction to try the suits; and therefore the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to try them. It was also contended that the claim of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. A contention was also raised in the written statement that the insurance company had no right to file these suits.

( 5 ) IN support of their claim the opponents plaintiffs led oral evidence before the trial Court. But the petitioner defendant did not lead any oral evidence in either of the two suits. The trial Court held that the Court at Delhi will have no jurisdiction to try the suits as no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court. Therefore even if the parties had agreed that the Court at Delhi will have jurisdiction to try and hear these suits it will have no such jurisdiction as the parties even by agreeing cannot confer on a Court jurisdiction which it does not possess. It further held that it had jurisdiction to try these suits as the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The trial Court relying upon the two deeds of subrogation Exhs. 32 and 39 came to the conclusion that the insurance compa