A court has jurisdiction to try a suit if the defendant carries on business or the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its local limits.

V. R. NEWASKAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by plaintiff Maniklal Mitlal against the Union of india for recovery of Rs. 6140. 17 np.

( 2 ) THE only question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Indore, in which the present suit was filed has jurisdiction to try the same. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The present revision petition is directed against that order

( 3 ) THE claim for recovery of the aforesaid amount arose under the following circumstances:-The defendant, represented by the Western Railway Administration, entered into a contract with the firm now represented by the plaintiff for conveyance of parcels and goods of all kinds initially from Dhamnod to mhow and back and later on from Dhamnod to Indore and back since the said Railway Administration has established an out-agency for the conveyance of parcels and floods of all kinds between these places. The contract provided for payment to the plaintiff for conveying the parcels and goods and for payment in accordance with the bills which the plaintiff was required to submit through the Station Master of Mhow railway Station while Mhow was the Railway Station to and from which the floods had to be carried to and from Dhamnod and later on through station Master Indore when the place was changed from Mhow to indore. It was implicit in the contract that after the bills were submitted through the Station Master, Indore they were to he forwarded to the deputy Chief Accounts Officer Ajmer and the Senior Accounts Officer delhi and thereafter the payments would be made by means of cheques drawn in the name of the Bankers of the Railway viz. the State Bank of india, Mhow or Indore, us the case may be. The plaintiff in Paragraph 19 of the plaint alleged as follows: "that, as in the Dhamnod Out-Agency work, the goods were to be transferred from and to Indore. within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try into the matter. "

( 4 ) THE plaintiff further alleged in aragraph 12 of the plaint that the Deputy Chief accounts Officer of Ajmer, Western Railway, had made payment of Rs. 44,564-44 np. by cheques on the said Bank of India. Indore. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had submitted his bills regularly for Western Railway Administration but the same had not been paid.

( 5 ) THE defendant disputed the coin petency of the suit in the Indore Court on the ground that in as much as the contract between the parties had taken place in bombay and the defendant, as the agent of Rail way, was required to pick up goods at Dhamnod and was also required to deliver the goods at Dhamnod the mere fact that the plaintiff carried the goods from Indore -Station to Dhamnod and from Dhamnod to Indore the latter place could not be called the place of business of the Western Railway In the special pleadings it was accepted that as per terms of the contract the plaintiff used to submit bills through the Station Master at indore to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Ajmer, who after checking used to provisionally accept the bills for payment.

( 6 ) IN face of these contentions of the parties the trial Court held that inasmuch as the contract had taken place at Bombay and the contract was performable between Mhow and Dhamnod and not at Indore and in the absence of any express or implied agreement pleaded by the plaintiff for payment of money at Indore, indore could not be the place of suing in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code since the Head Office of the Western Railway is at bombay. The plaint was accordingly directed to be returned for presentation to proper court.

( 7 ) PLAINTIFF preferred appeal against the said order. The appellate Court agreed with the view taken by the trial Court. According to it there was nothing in the contract Ex. IV]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document