JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J. - This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Defendant No. 1 is a firm carrying on business of commission agency at Poona and defendant No. 2 is a partner of the firm. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Jaipur.

3. The plaintiff sent 151 bags of gram to the defendant-firm on 2-5-1970 from Jaipur by Rail for sale in its commission agency. It also sent 151 bags of gram-dal on 19-5-1970 from Khairtal (Alwar District) for the same purpose. Instructions were issued by the plaintiff from time to time as to the rate at which the gram and the gram-dal was to be sold. One allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant-firm sold the gram and the gram-dal against its instructions and below the market rate and thereby caused loss to it. The defendant-firm received 800 kg. gram-dal short from the railway and compromised the claim for Rs. 652-80, when the claim should have been for Rs. 996-00 at Rs. 122-00 per quintal, without consulting the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereby suffered a further loss of Rs. 343-20. The defendant sent three accounts to the plaintiff at Jaipur as follows:—

C6/2 dated 24-7-1970

C6/3 dated 30-10-1970

C6/4 dated 26-5-1970.

There were arithmetical mistakes in calculation in these accounts. The cartage, brokerage, godown rent and insurance charges debited to the plaintiff were excessive. The interest debited was also excessive by Rs. 511-00. Out of 119 bags only 118 were shown to have been sold in one parcha of account and the price of one bag amounting to Rs. 122-00 had not been accounted for. According to final settlement of accounts sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 2,080,00 was payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. But, because the defendant committed breach of contract in several respects referred to above, a sum of Rs. 1,126-65 was actually payable to the plaintiff according to the plaint allegations after adjusting damages for breach of contract. To this, a sum of Rs. 23/- was added as interest and the present suit was instituted in the court at Jaipur for recovery of Rs. 1,149-65.

4. The defendant filed an application that the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court, however, held on the basis of the decision of this Court in Firm Bilasrai Mannalal vs. Firm Purshottam Das Sanwaldas(l) that when the transactions about which the parties had entered into a contract had come to an end and the relationship of debtor and creditor was created between them in respect of the amount remaining due from one party to the other, in the absence of any agreement as to where the amount was payable the principle that the debtor must seek the creditor becomes applicable, and the suit was triable by the Jaipur court.

5. Against the above decision, the present revision application has been filed by the defendant.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the decision in Firm Bilasrai Mannalal vs. Firm Purshottam Das(l) is applicable to the present case and the suit is triable by the court at Jaipur.

7. The defendant relied on some decisions of other courts in which a contrary view was taken but these decisions have, in my opinion, failed to consider the effect of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Soniram Jeetmull vs. R.D. Tata & Co. Ltd.(2). In that case, the appellants were sued in Rangoon by R.D. Tata .& Go. Ltd., who had a business branch there, for payment of sums of money, due upon the failure of constituents to satisfy debts due to the latter, which sums the defendants had undertaken to make good to them, but the defendants, who carried on business in Calcutta, contended that they could not be sued for this money in Rangoon. The transactions between these parties were a continuation of dealings which had existed for a number of years before the present plaintiffs became an incor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document