Key Points from the Judgment

Core Holding on Jurisdiction Objection: - An objection relating to the place of suing cannot be allowed by a revisional court unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) [23000140200007]

Facts of the Case: - Plaintiff, sole proprietor of Messrs. Virdi Industries (manufacturing and selling shuttles), sued defendants (firm Tarsema Textile Traders and its managing partner) for recovery of Rs. 4,783.24 (balance due after debits/credits from goods supplied since 17-9-1957).[23000140200001] (!) - Goods were dispatched from Amritsar on orders received there; rates were F.O.R. Amritsar; account verified in November 1959.[23000140200001] (!) [23000140200003] - Agency agreement dated 22-1-1958 (amended 1-4-1958) for sole selling agency in Bombay area; disputes to be settled at Bombay and Amritsar; post-agency, goods supplied on mutually settled rates. (!) [23000140200002]

Defendants' Objections: - No cause of action at Amritsar; defendants do not carry on business there; specific agreement limits disputes to Bombay courts.[23000140200002] - Prior suit filed by defendants in Bombay for accounts and commission.[23000140200002] - Claimed interpolation in agreement adding "Amritsar"; relationship as principal-commission agent, business at Bombay.[23000140200002] (!)

Trial Court's Findings: - Part of cause of action arose in Amritsar (goods dispatched from there, F.O.R. Amritsar implying delivery there); prior sale-purchase transactions included.[23000140200003] - Suit treated as seller-purchaser, not principal-agent for accounts; court had territorial jurisdiction.[23000140200003]

Issues Framed: - Whether Amritsar court had jurisdiction. - Whether objection to territorial jurisdiction barred by Section 21 CPC.[judgement_subject]

Arguments on Revision: - Petitioner argued principal-agent relationship mandates Bombay courts; erroneous jurisdiction assumption warrants interference.[23000140200004] - Respondent argued seller-purchaser relationship; no failure of justice; commission issued to Bombay for evidence.[23000140200006]

Ratio Decidendi: - Section 21 CPC bars revisional interference on territorial jurisdiction objection unless taken earliest and consequent failure of justice proven; distance alone insufficient.[23000140200007] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - No failure of justice shown (commission to Bombay issued; no material prejudice demonstrated).[23000140200006][23000140200007] (!)

Final Decision: - Revision dismissed; Amritsar court jurisdiction upheld absent failure of justice; parties to bear own costs. (!) [23000140200007]