Agreement to confer jurisdiction in Courts lacking jurisdiction is not permissible.

K. Mohan Ram, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 626 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 626 of 1985 was filed by the respondents herein, against the appellant for grant of a decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs.93,919.80 with subsequent interest at 18% par annum from the date of the suit till the dale of realization and for costs. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:

The first plaintiff is an Insurance Company and the second plaintiff is a manufacturer of sewing needles and other connected items having its registered office at Needle Industries Post, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. The defendant/appellant is a firm carrying on business as fleet owners and cargo movers having their head office at Calicut, Kerala State. On 22.11.1983, the second plaintiff/second respondent herein, under Invoice No.STD/113 dated 22.11.1983 despatched goods from Coonoor to their depot at New Delhi and entrusted the goods to the appellant, as per the invoice. The appellant agreed and undertook to transport the articles and issued a Lorry Receipt No. 1677360/43 dated 22.11.1983 to the second respondent. The respondents have stated that the appellant is the insurer of goods, as per the provisions of Carriers Act. The appellant ought to have delivered the goods at New Delhi. But due to the negligence of their servants or agents, the goods were not delivered to the consignee at New Delhi. It is also contended by the appellant/defendant that the said consignment entrusted to them by the second respondent and another consignment were transported by a truck from Dewas Naka to Ghaziabad and that the vehicle caught fire near Jaipur and in that, the truck and the goods loaded in the truck were burnt. The appellant issued a consolidated non-delivery certificate, dated 13.6.1984. The second respondent herein, made a claim on 19.6.1984 to the appellant to settle their claim and since the appellant refused to settle it, the second, respondent claimed the value from the first respondent, as the goods were insured with the first respondent under an open policy No.946/4400019 for the period 1.1.1983 to 31.12.1983.

3. It is further stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff thereupon got itself subrogated to all the rights of the second plaintiff in pursuance of the latter of subrogation executed at Coimbatore by the second respondent, dated 29.9.1984 and settled the claim of the second respondent by paying a sum of Rs.93,913.80, being the value of the goods and the freight charges.

4. It is further stated that on 22.10.1984 the first respondent sent a notice of demand to the appellant mentioning the above said facts requesting him to pay a sum of Rs.93,919.80. Though the appellant received that notice, he did not comply with the demand and hence the first respondent sent another notice on 10.8.1985. But the appellant, neither complied with that demand nor sent any reply. Therefore, the suit has been filed.

5. The second respondent had been made as second plaintiff, as a matter of abundant caution. The appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement inter alia contending as follows:

The appellant admitted the entrustment of goods by the second respondent. The appellant contended that as per Clause 20 of the Way Bill, Courts in Calicut alone have Jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon any matter between the parties and hence the Court at Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant admitted that they are the carriers of goods under the Carriers Act. The appellant contended that alter carrying the goods to Dewas Naka, they handed over the same to a hired truck owned by Shree Omprakash, 4061 Roshanarara Road, Delhi and the goods were transhipped from Dewas Naka by Truck No. CPO 8045 on 31.12.1983 for onward movement to the destination. But unfortunately, the truck caught fire near Kotputhly in between Jaipur a