Chhangani, J.—This is a plaintiffs revision against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 8th September, 1955, dismissing the plaintiff-petitioners appeal and maintaining the order of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur dated 22nd November, 1954 returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

2. The facts of the case broadly stated are as follows:—

The plaintiff-petitioners, Balloram and Varyamal claim to be the proprietors of a firm Bansiram Balloram which at one time carried on business in Sibi Baluchistan, now a part of Pakistan. The defendant-non-petitioner no. 1, Seth Uttamchand Bishandas is a firm carrying on business as commission agents and bankers at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. The defendants no. 2 to 6 who are non-petitioners in the revision petition, viz. Kishandas, Ramdas, Pehumal, Tekchand, Joturam and Jethmal, are said to be its partners.

3. The plaintiffs case is that they appointed the defendants firm as their commission agents for the purchase of jaggery in November-December, 1946 and in that connection, paid various sums of money to the defendant firm either in Pakistan or at Meerut.

According to the plaintiffs, it was agreed that the defendants would render accounts and arrange payment of the balance that may be found due to the plaintiffs at Sibi in Pakistan. On Asad 18, Samwat 2004 corresponding to 8th August, 1947, the defendant firm sent an account to the plaintiffs firm at Sibi according to which the defendant firm acknowledged an amount of Rs. 10,825/- as due to the plaintiffs and for the payment of the same amount, they sent two Hundis to the plaintiffs firm at Sibi. The plaintiffs firm, however, did not think it proper to take payments under the Hundis and returned them to the defendant firm with a direction that the amount may be kept in deposit with the defendants and that the plaintiffs would be coming to Meerut for purchase of jaggery and would require the amount in that connection. Subsequently, in consequence of partition, the plaintiffs had to leave Pakistan and come over to India and, therefore, they could not utilize the amount for the purchase of jaggery and the amount remained in deposit with the defendant firm carrying interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The plaintiffs alleged having received Rs. 8,000/- on different dates and claimed that the amount of Rs. 2,825/- remained due. The plaintiffs case further is that they have settled at Bharatpur from where they made a demand of payment from the defendants. They also served a notice dated 20th June, 1950, upon the defendants, but the defendants paid ho heed. They also drew a Hundi for Rs. 1,500/- on the defendant firm to secure payment, but the same was not honoured by the defendants. They accordingly filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,825/- as principal and Rs. 815/- as interest, total Rs. 3,640/-in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur on 1st July, 1950.

4. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit and, inter alia, pleaded that the court of the Civil Judge at Bharatpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They denied the agreement set up by the plaintiffs for rendering accounts and paying dues at Sibi and further pleaded that the cause of action did not arise either in whole or in part in any area now forming part of Pakistan. The parties are agreed that in case of the cause of action having wholly or partly arisen in any area which now forms the part of Pakistan, the plaintiffs would be entitled to institute a suit in a court having jurisdiction over the place of residence of the plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948 as amended from time to time.

5. The trial judge held that no part of the cause of action arose in Sibi and that the suit could not be instituted in his court. He, therefore, directed the return of the plaint. It will be useful to give here the various grounds on which the plaintiff attempted to give jurisdiction to the court at Bh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document