Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 862
Rajasthan High Court
Honble H.R. PANWAR, J.
M/s. Hindustan Metals Jodhpur - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Vishal Goods Transport Co. & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 175 of 1984
Decided On : August 14, 2001
H.R. Soni, for Appellant A.R. Mehta and S.P. Sharma, for Respondents
Headnote:C.P.C., Sec. 20 – Jurisdiction – Both plaintiff and defendant are registered firms – Plaintiff booked goods for transportation with defendant who has branch office at Jodhpur and Head Office at Delhi – Goods were not delivered to the consignee – Filed suit for recovery – Defendant raised plea of territorial jurisdiction as condition printed overleaf of the document provides that the Courts in Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction of claims – Held – The jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action wholly or partly arises cannot be taken away by the choice of the party to the contract merely on the basis of the condition printed on the bills or bilty – The parties cannot create a jurisdiction in the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction no cause of action has at all arises. (Paras 17 to 19)
The jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action wholly or partly arises cannot be taken away by the choice of the party to the contract merely on the basis of the condition printed on the bills or the bilty as the case may be. The parties cannot create a jurisdiction in the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction no cause of action has at all arisen. In the instant case, the cause of action do arise to the appellant plaintiff at Jodhpur and the suit has rightly been instituted at the Court situated at Jodhpur. In the instant case the defendants failed to establish that if the said suit is tried in the Courts at Jodhpur it would result in failure of justice. Admittedly, the defendants Branch Office is situated at Jodhpur from where the goods are transported and the defendants are carrying on their business of career/transportation. Admittedly goods were booked and handed over to the defendants for transportation to M/s. Modi Steel at Jodhpur Branch Office and under these circumstances by contesting the case At Jodhpur no failure of justice would occasion to the defendants. (Para 17)
(2). The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that; the appellant-plaintiff (for short `the plaintiff) filed a suit before the Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 3,050/- against the respondent-defendants, inter alia, stating therein that the plaintiff-firm is a registered firm and the respondent defendants Transport-company is also a registered Transport Company firm and undertaking the businesses of career by transporting goods through their trucks having a branch office at Jodhpur and principal office at Delhi (for short `the defendants). It was averred that on 6.6.1973 the plaintiff booked the goods (scrape) weighting about 100 quintal to be delivered to M/s Modi Steels, Modi Nagar which is situated in the State of U.P. near Gaziyabad. It was further averred that the plaintiff demanded receipt of the goods from M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar by letter No. 247 dated 20.06.1994. In response to this letter M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar intimated that the goods sent by the plaintiff on 6.6.1973 by truck No. RRL 4156 has not been delivered to the consignee M/s. Modi Steels. The plaintiff, by its letter dated 24.06.1974 inquired from the defendant No.2 with the request that the receipt by which the goods were sent may also be made available to the plaintiff. This letter remained unreplied. The plaintiff again on 28.8.1974 sent a reminder but the defendants did not respond. Thereafter on 11.11.1974 the defendants were served with a notice demanding the amount for the loss occasioned on account of non-delivery of the aforesaid goods. That notice was also not responded by the defendants. Despite the aforesaid communications and notice, the defendants did not pay the amount for the loss occasioned to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff after calculating the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for 36 months filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3050/- (Rs. 2,234/- original amount of the goods and Rs. 806/- the interest and the expenses on notice) against the defendants.
(3). On receipt of the notice, the defendants filed the application dated 6.12.1976 by which the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court was challenged and it was contended that the printed condition No.17 overleaf the document Ex.A/1 provides that the court in Delhi City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all the claims and the matters arising under consignment or of the goods entrusted for transportation.
(4). The condition printed overleaf of the Ex.A/1 has not been signed by either of the parties. During the pendency of the said application, the defendants filed written statement. In the written statement also a similar plea was raised. The learned trial court framed the issues and issue No.6 was specifically framed in the following terms;
``Whether on the basis of objection raised in para 10 of the written statement this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case?
(5). This issue was framed on the pleadings of defendants and, therefore, burden to prove this issue was rested on the defendants. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Jasraj Surana and proved the bilty Ex.A/1 by which the goods were booked and sent to the consignee M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar. The defendants did not lead any evidence and as such the evidence of plaintiff remained uncontroverted. The learned trial court by the judgment and decree dated 24th Sept., 1981 decided issues No.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.3 in favour of the defendant.
(6). Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.9.1981 the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate court. Before the first appellate court, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants confined its arguments on the point of
