Bapna, J.—This is a revision by the plaintiffs against an order of the Civil Judge, Balotra, dismissing an appeal against the order of the Munsif Balotra, directing return of the plaint for presentation to a proper court.

2. The petitioners filed a suit against the opposite party in the court of Munsif Balotra on the allegations that plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 had entrusted a certain stack of hay to the defendant on Posh Sudi 12 Smt. 1998 at Baitu under an agreement of that date and later on sold half share of that stack to plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6 by executing a deed at Balotra on Baisakh Sudi 15 Smt 2002 and thereafter when the plaintiffs asked the defendant to hand back the stack of hay on Baisakh Sudi 15, Smt. 2002, he failed to do so. Plaintiffs claimed Rs. 400/- as damages on account of what they alleged to be the wrongful conversion of goods. The relevant portion of para 3 of the plaint on which the two courts have passed their order is as follows:—

"When the plaintiffs demanded the stack of hay, the defendant neither complied with the terms of his agreement nor handed over the stack of hay and by this committed wrongful conversion for which the defendant is responsible to pay the current price of the goods to the plaintiffs which amounted to Rs. 400/."

The English words wrongful conversion are mentioned in that paragraph of the plaint which is otherwise in Hindi. The relevant portion of the agreement of Smt. 1998 Ex. P- referred to in the plaint is as follows :—

"This document executed by Moda of Baitu in favour of Pratap Mal, Misrimal, Kesrimal and Sohan Raj : whereas I have today given you one stack of hay towards payment of my debt and it is lying to the west of my Dhani, it is (now) yours. But I shall keep watch over it and will cover it. If it is spoiled by rains or eaten away by animals I shall pay its price. I am responsible for it and if any damage occurs,I shall pay it."

3. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the court of Munsif at Balotra where the suit had been instituted had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

4. The learned Munsif accepted the defendants plea on the ground that the suit as framed was one in torts for damages for wrongful conversion of property and could only be instituted under sec. 19 of the Civil Procedure Code in the court which had jurisdiction either at the place where the wrongful conversion took place or where the defendant resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. It was held that the village Baitu where the conversion took place or where the defendant resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain was not within the jurisdiction of the Balotra court but was within the jurisdiction of the court of Munsif at Barmer. Learned Munsif also held that the assignment of half share alleged to have been made at Balotra was invalid and did not furnish any cause of action as it was a transfer of claim in torts. The learned Munsif ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.

5. In appeal it was argued that the suit was for damages for breach of the contract and not in torts, but the learned Civil Judge agreed with the opinion of the lower court and maintained the order of the lower court.

6. In this revision it was contended that the suit as framed was one for damages for breach of contract and it had been wrongly construed as one for damages for wrong done to movable property and that the place of suing should be determined with reference to sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention is correct. The allegations in the plaint show that the defendant in payment of his debt made over a stack of hay but as it could not be carried away by the plaintiffs, he agreed to keep it in his possession and to see that it was safe till the plaintiffs took its delivery. The position of the defendant was that of a bailee and the allegations in para 3 amounted to a statement that on demand the defendant neither

Click Here to Read the rest of this document