A suit was filed, inter alia, against the petitioner in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, claiming a sum of Rs. 28,483.00 jointly and severally against 6 persons who were impleaded as defendants in the case. An issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the court was framed in the suit and the same was taken up as a preliminary issue. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 6 has assailed the same in this application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. As it is defendant No. 6 alone who has come up to this Court, it would be enough if averments made in the plaint relating particularly to him are taken note of. The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into contract with defendant No. 1 on 5.9.1974 to supply two tonnes of Titanium Dioxide to despatch the same by road to Ledo via Tinsukia. For this purpose, the plaintiff contacted defendant No. 4 who is a carrier, Defendant No. 5 being its Manager. The plaintiff met this defendant on 5,9.74 itself when he was told that due to heavy floods, direct road communication to Assam was suspended temporarily and therefore all consignments would be stored at Madras godown for a few days till road communication to Assam would be resumed. While the plaintiff was at Trivandrum, where he had gone to enter into the contract, he met defendant No. 6 in the hotel where he was putting up and developed some acquaintance with him as he was also a Hindi speaking gentlemen. On 9,9.74, the plaintiff requested this defendant to be kind to take care of plaintiff's consignments which would be stored at Madras for a few days in the godown of defendant No. 4 and to see that the same are stored well and are despatched to Assam. The request was friendly. Subsequently, the plaintiff knew that the consign­ments were sent only upto Madras, and not to Ledo. At Madras, defendant No. 6 took delivery of the consignments for onward despatch to Assam but the same was not done. The plaintiff, therefore entered into correspondence with defendant No. 6 who concocted a" fairy tale" that he had been authorised by the former to take delivery of the consignments to hand-over the same to some other parties in liquida­tion of the loan taken by the plaintiff. Several attempts were made to recover the price of the goods, but all went in vain following which the present suit was filed.

3. Relying on the above averments relating to the petitioner, it is contended by Shri Barua that the court at Dibrugarh had no jurisdiction to try the case inasmuch as it is section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code which would del ermine the question of territorial jurisdiction relating to the case of the plaintiff against the petitioner, and the Court at Dibrugarh is not one which is contemplated by section 19 which reads :-

"19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables- Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts."

Shri Barua contends that as the present is a suit for compensation for wrong done to some movable property the suit could have been filed only where the wrong was done and or where the petitioner resides or carries on business, or personally work for gain. As the petitioner does not reside, or carry on business, or work for gain within the local limits of the Court of Assistant District Judge at Dibrugarh, the question to be determined is whether it could be said that the wrong was done within the local limits of the aforesaid court.

4. To satisfy me about the applicability of section 19, Shri Barua has urged that in so far as defendant No, 6 is concerned, it is not the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document