MEHTA, Ag. C.J. :- The City Civil Court's order returning the plaint for presenting to the proper Court having been confirmed in appeal by the learned single Judge, the plaintiff has come in this appeal. The plaintiff was carrying on business in a shop in question at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff had taken out two policies at Exs. 34 and 35 for Rs. 50,000 and 25,000 on November 28, 1968 from this insurer the Co-operative General Insurance Company limited, Hyderabad, whose head office was at Hyderabad. Now on nationalisation Act of 1972 , this company has been a unit of United India Fire and General Insurance Company, which had its head office at Madras and the Branch Office is at Hyderabad. On Sept. 18, 1969, the plaintiff had goods worth Rs. 55,000 and furniture worth Rs. 10,000 in this shop when it was closed. On Sept. 19, 1969, due to fire the plaintiff's shop having been burnt, the plaintiff lodged a claim of Rs. 65, 000 with the original insurer on Sept. 30, 1969. The plaintiff's claim was rejected on Nov 22, 1969 on various grounds. The plaintiff gave a notice on May 9, 1970 and after the reply of the original insurer on May 28, 1970, this claim in pauperism was instituted by the plaintiff in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court on June 29, 1970. The pauper application was granted on November 5, 1971. In the suit a preliminary objection having been raised as to the jurisdiction because of clause 15 of the policy, the said objection was tried as a preliminary issue. Clause 15 runs as under:-

"15. It is hereby declared and agreed that in case of any claim arising in respect of the property hereby insured the same shall be settled and paid in Hyderabad (A. P). And the entire cause of action shall also be deemed to arise in Hyderabad (A. P.) and further that all legal proceedings in respect of any such claim shall be instituted in a competent Court in the city of Hyderabad (A. P.) only."

2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that even though the cause of action had accrued at Ahmedabad, which was the competent Court because the policy was issued at Ahmedabad, the subject-matter of the contract was situated at Ahmedabad and the loss had also taken place at Ahmedabad the Civil Court at Hyderabad would also have jurisdiction at the time of the commencement of the suit because the original insurer had at that time their principal office at Hyderabad. Therefore, both the Courts at Hyderabad and at Ahmedabad having jurisdiction to try the suit, in view of the choice of forum under Cl. 15 of the two policies and the settled legal position laid down in Hakam Sing v.Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 the plaintiff's suit could not be entertained at Ahmedabad. Therefore, the aforesaid order of return of the plaint having been made by the trial Court and the same having been confirned in appeal, the plaintiff has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Unfortunately, both the Courts' attention was not drawn to the relevant provision in S. 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Even under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, under S. 35, it is in terms provided as under -

"35. Subject to such exceptions, restrictions and limitations, if any, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, the Insurance Act shall apply to or in relation to the Corporation and every acquiring company as if the Corporation or the acquiring company, as the case may be, were an insurer carrying on general business within the meaning of that Act." In the relevant notification which has been issued under S. 35 of this General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, by the Central Government specifying the exceptions, restrictions and limitations on Dec. 29, 1972, while laying down various sections of the Insurance Act, 1938, which are not applicable, this relevant provision in S. 46 is not excluded. Therefore, even after the nationalisation of this insurance business, it is clear that S. 46 would govern the present q