R. MALA, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.No.5538 of 2003 in C.S.No.950 of 2003 filed under Order VIII-A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order V-A of the High Court Original Side Rules, for the purpose of claiming contribution towards the suit claim from a third party, who is not a party to the suit dismissing the same by stating that this Court has no jurisdiction as per the terms of Bill of Lading between the first defendant and the third party.

2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(i) The first plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, imported a consignment of Gear Boxes from a Company in Finland, which was insured with the second plaintiff/second respondent herein and the consignment was entrusted to the first defendant, who is a Sea Carrier, having registered office at Basel, Switzerland. The second defendant is the agent of the first defendant, who signed the Bill of Lading and acknowledged the entrustment of Cargo.

(ii) The said cargo was intended to be transhipped from Helsinki Sea Port to Chennai Sea Port. But the cargo was lost midway, resulting which, the suit was filed by the first plaintiff/first respondent. After receipt of summons, the first defendant had come forward with an application in A.No.5538 of 2003 for impleading the third party under Order VIII-A(1) of C.P.C. read with Section V-A of the High Court Original Side Rules.

(iii) Applicant/first defendant is carrying on business as Carriers of cargo and they entrusted the cargo to the third party/third respondent herein, who is also a Sea Carrier, for transhipment from Helsinki to Chennai and the third respondent issued their Bill of Lading on 22.11.2002. As per the Bill of Lading, the second defendant was the shipper of the said cargo and M/S. Lee and Muirhead Ltd., Chennai, who are the agents of the first defendant at Chennai were the consignees. The third party/third respondent undertook to carry the said container by the vessel M.V. Carina from Helsinki to Hamburg and after transhipment at Hamburg, it was to be carried by the vessel M.V.Hongkong Express to Singapore. The said container was to undergo further transhipment at the port of Singapore from where, it was to be carried by a Vessel M.V.Tiger Sky to Chennai. Having issued a Bill of Lading, third party/third respondent herein was liable to deliver the said container in good order and condition at Chennai for being ultimately delivered to the first respondent (i.e.) first plaintiff.

(iv) Applicant/first defendant stated that the said container with the said cargo was not delivered at Chennai and enquiries were therefore made with the third respondent herein through their agents at Chennai and Singapore. Applicant/first defendant then came to know that the said container with the said cargo had not been landed even at Singapore.

(v) On 10.12.2002, there was a collision between two vessels viz., M.V. Hongkong Express and Sara Glory at Suez canal. Since the cargo has been entrusted with the third party, they alone responsible for delivering the said cargo and since they had not delivered, they committed the breach of contract. But the third party had not taken any action regarding the same. Even the third party had not informed the first defendant/appellant as to what happened to the cargo or as to how it was lost. As per the Bill of Lading, the third respondent alone is responsible for the safe delivery of the cargo at the port of discharge which they have failed and neglected to do and are therefore liable to compensate the applicant/Appellant herein for all the loss that they would suffer on account of the claim lodged by the first plaintiff/first respondent herein. Since the respondents 1 and 2 were claiming that they suffered loss, they are entitled to contribution and also liable to be indemnified by the third party, who is the third respondent herein in the event of