1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

1. Both the appeals, filed by the same defendant-appellants, involve common facts and identical question of law, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Jai Kishan, in Appeal No. 163/1991, filed a Civil Suit No. 9/78 (66/77), and plaintiff-respondent Shanti Devi, in Appeal No. 164/1991, filed a Civil Suit No. 8/78 (65/77), in the trial court against the same defendant-appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19656.06 p. and 19,503.32p., respectively, towards damages. The suits were filed on or about 15th September 1977, wherein it was pleaded that a written contract (Exhibit-1) was executed in between the parties on 8th August, 1974 at Kishangarh for supply of about 25000 meter power-loom-cotton at the rate of Rs. 2.25 p. per meter, by the plaintiff to the defendants from September 1974 upto 10th October, 1974. The other terms and conditions were also mentioned in Exhibit-1. 17130 meters power-loom-cotton in the case of plaintiff Shanti Devi and 17814 meters in the case of plaintiff Jai Kishan were sent to the defendant-appellants in five instalments during the period from 9th September, 1974 to 3rd October 1974 at Amritsar to be delivered to defendant and Biltee/Hundees thereof were sent through Bank of Rajasthan, Kishangarh. The defendants did not honour the Hundees and the same were sent back at Kishangarh, which were received by plaintiff Jai Kishan on 16th October, 1974 and plaintiff Shanti Devi on 16th October 1974 and 19th October, 1974.

3. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs received a telegram from defendants on 18th September 1974 repudiating the contract, which, according to the plaintiffs, was wrong and illegal. The plaintiffs, thereafter sent a telegram on 31st October, 1974 to defendants thus

"You have not honoured Hundies and have not taken Bilties of contracted goods from Bank. By your letter dated 22.10.74 you have wrongfully refused taking delivery. Rates have fallen. Selling goods at your risk after three days on 4th Nov. 1974. You will be responsible for all losses. Take note."

4. The plaintiffs thereafter sold the aforesaid Biltee alongwith power-loom-cotton in Kishangarh to M/s. Naresh Textiles at the current market rate i.e Re. 1.48p. per meter, on 4th November, 1974 and suffered a loss as per details given in the plaint. The plaintiff further claimed bank expenses, bank interest and telegram charges etc.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written-statement wherein it was pleaded that the trial court had not territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit as the whole cause of action arose at Amritsar and even no part cause of action arose within the territory of Ajmer Court. It was also averred that goods were to be sent in one lot and not in instalments, therefore, the defendants were fully justified in not accepting the goods sent in instalments. It was also averred that the contract was not enforceable and was void as it was a forward-contract and under the Notification dated 25th January, 1955 such forward-contract was prohibited. The plea of limitation was also taken. The interest and other expenses were denied and it was prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed eight issues common in both the suits, which are reproduced in the judgment of the trial court.

7. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and i produced documentary evidence. The defendants examined three witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

8. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and considering their submissions as well as the record of the trial court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff Shanti Devi for a sum of Rs. 19,503.32 p. and suit of the plaintiff Jai Kishan for a sum of Rs. 19,656.32p. The trial court also awarded costs as well as interest at the rate of 12% per ann