Sharma, J.—This is an application in revision by the defendant Chiranjilal against whom the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.35143/10/- as damages for breach of contract. The contract was entered into between the parties at Udaipur on the 14th July, 1949 for the supply of till seeds to the plaintiff. The terms of the contract which are relevant for the purpose of the case at this stage are as follows :—

(1) Railway Receipt would be sent through Bank to Kishangarh and the purchaser would atonce take delivery of it.

(2) Seller is responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared.

2. The defendant raised an objection in the lower court that the Jaipur court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property was to be delivered at Ratlam and the contract was entered into at Udaipur. The suit could therefore be filed either at Udaipur or at Ratlam. The plaintiff replied that the seller was responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared and sent to the plaintiff at Kishangarh who was to take delivery of it on payment of the balance of price of goods. The part of the cause of action therefore arose at Kishangarh and the Jaipur court had jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, Jaipur District came to the conclusion that by virtue of the term of contract that the Railway Receipt was to be delivered at Kishangarh and the price was to be paid there, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the lower court and he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against this judgment of the learned District Judge, the defendant has come in revision to this Court.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Tri-vedi appearing on behalf of the applicant that according to the terms of the contract the delivery was to be given bilti cut at Ratlam which means F.O.R. Ratlam. He has argued that the delivery was thus to be given to the plaintiff at Ratlam and the contract on the side of the defendant would have been completed as soon as the goods were delivered to the railway authorities at Ratlam. As the goods were not so delivered a breach took place at Ratlam and so no part of the cause of action can be said to arise at Kishangarh. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that the Railway Receipt was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh against payment of the balance of the price and therefore an important part of the cause of action was to arise at Kishangarh. Ruling reported in V. Lakshmipathi Naidu vs. M. E. Mohamed Ghani (A.I.R. 1947 Madras Page 83) has been cited in his support by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a ruling of the Lahore High Court reported in Messrs. Amar Nath Shadi Lal vs. Messrs. 8. Dhondusa Dhaktappa and Brothers (A.I.R 1941 Lahore Page 223).

4. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and also the rulings cited by them. Under sec. 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure a suit can be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." It has got to be seen whether in this case the cause of action wholly or in part can be said to arise at Kishangarh which is in the territorial jurisdiction of the lower court. In the case of a contract the cause of action arises at the place where the contract was made. It also arises at the place where the contract was to be performed or performance thereof was completed. It further arises at the place where in the performance of the contract any money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable. There can be no doubt that the contract was not made at Kishangarh. It was made at Udaipur, but a part of it was to be performed at Kishangarh in as much as the Railway Receipt which might have entitled the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods was to be delivered at Kishangarh. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Railway Receipt was to be sent to Kishang

Click Here to Read the rest of this document