1. This appeal is by the Plaintiff company and is directed against the order dated 12th Sept. 1975 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City on Issue No.1 in O.S. No. 150 of 1972 on his file.
2. The Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of balance of the price towards silt equipages supplied to the 2nd defendant in Bhuvaneshwar. The defendant No. 2 raised the contention that the court in Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That is the subject matter of issue No. 1 which was set down for hearing as preliminary issue.
3. The learned Civil judge appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary adduced before him, came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action took place in Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly he ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before a competent Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court.
Section 20 C. P. C. no, doubt states, 'Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) & (b)....................................
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises'.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff company that the tender was offered for supply of silt equipages to the executive Engineer, Southern Gauging Division in Bangalore, but that it was addressed to the 2nd defendant. Ultimately his tender was accepted and he supplied the silt equipages for which, according to the plaintiff, 2nd defendant was due the balance of price totaling to Rs. 32897.86 paise. Accordingly, the plaintiff sued the defendants in the court of the Principal Civil judge, Bangalore City at O. S. No. 150 of 1972. The defendants on entering appearance pleaded that the Court of the Principal Civil judge had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for, according to them, no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Civil Judge was not justified in holding that no part of the cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City. According to him the offer was made in Bangalore and as such, the learned Civil judge ought to have held that part of the cause of action arose within the limits of Bangalore City. Hence he prayed that the appeal be allowed.
6. As against that, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants submitted that a mere offer cannot be considered as part of the cause of action and as such the Court in Bangalore City has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
7. The sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is whether it can be stated that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Bangalore Civil Court.
8. The contract is completed when an offer made is accepted. It is the acceptance that gives rise to the cause of, action and not merely an offer. Hence, even though an offer is made from Bangalore, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arises in Bangalore. In a suit the cause of action will consist of making of the contract and its breach at the place where it is to be performed. Therefore, a suit for breach of contract can, at the option of the plaintiff be brought either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where the breach was committed. It can also be said that the place where money is to be paid or goods are to be supplied are also the places where parts of the cause of action arise, but certainly not the place where offer is made.
9. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwandas v. Girdharlal and Co. : 1SCR656 , has laid down thus:
'Making of an offer at a place which has been accepted elsewhere does not form part of the cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of the contract. Ordinarily it is the acceptance of offer and intimation of that acceptance which result in a contract. By intimating an offer, when the parties are not in the presence of each other; offeror is deemed to be making the offer continuously till the offer reaches the offeree. The offeror thereby merely intimates his intention to enter into a contract on the terms of the offer. The offeror cannot impose upon the offeree an obligation to accept, nor proclaim that silence of the offeree shall be deemed consent. A contract being the result of offer made by one party and acceptance of that very offer by the other, acceptance of the offer and intimation of acceptance by some external manifestation which the law records as sufficient is necessary.''
'Mere making of an offer does not form part of the cause of action for suit for damage for breach of the contract which has resulted from acceptance of the offer.'
That being so, it is obvious that there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the place where the offer is made is the place where part of the cause of action arose.
10. In the instant case, the tender was addressed to the 2nd defendant in Bhuvaneshwar. It was accepted by him in Bhuvaneshwar, as can be seen by Exhibit D. 1. Hence, the cause of action arose at Bhuvaneshwar. Further, the stipulation is that the goods shall be delivered at Bhuvaneshwar and money shall be received at Bhuvaneshwar. Therefore, it is obvious that no part of the cause of action arises in Bangalore City. That being so, I have no compelling grounds to differ from the findings of the learned Civil judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
11. The plaintiff, is given 3 months time to take back the plaint and present it before the proper Court.
12. Ordered accordingly.