Skip to content


Babu Baroda Parshad Bose Vs. Babu Peare Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.77
AppellantBabu Baroda Parshad Bose
RespondentBabu Peare Lal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 17 explanation iii - jurisdiction of court--contract--place of acceptance--contract act (ix of 1872), sections 4 and 7. - .....section 17 explanation iii of the code of civil procedure (act no. xiv of 1882) to entertain the suit at aligarh. reliance is placed on a ruling reported in kamisetti suhbiah and others v. katha venkatasawamy 27 m 355, where it was held that 'under the indian contract act where the proposal and acceptance are made by letters the contract is made at the time when and at the place where the letter of acceptance is posted, though the contract is voidable at the instance of the acceptor by communication of his revocation before the acceptance has come to the knowledge of the proposer.' in this case the proposal was made from aligarh and after negotiations as to the cost of advertisement the proposal was finally accepted at calcutta. in view of the provisions of sections 4 and 7 of the.....
Judgment:

Griffin, J.

1. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant, who is the proprietor of a news-paper published in Calcutta, asking him to publish an advertisement for him and sending at the same time Rs. 10. The defendant declined to accept Rs. 10 as sufficient, and after some negotiations agreed to accept Rs. 24 as the costs for the advertisement. This sum was remitted to the defendant by the plaintiff, who resides at Aligarh. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this application has arisen in the. Court of the Munsif of Aligarh, to recover damages for a breach of contract. The defendant pleaded that the suit was not cognizable at Aligarh. The Court of First Instance sustained this plea and dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court on appeal decreed the suit in part holding that the suit was congnizable at Aligarh. The defendant comes here in Revision and contends that the order of the Court below is wrong in law inasmuch as the Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of Section 17 Explanation III of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. XIV of 1882) to entertain the suit at Aligarh. Reliance is placed on a ruling reported in Kamisetti Suhbiah and others v. Katha Venkatasawamy 27 M 355, where it was held that 'under the Indian Contract Act where the proposal and acceptance are made by letters the contract is made at the time when and at the place where the letter of acceptance is posted, though the contract is voidable at the instance of the acceptor by communication of his revocation before the acceptance has come to the knowledge of the proposer.' In this case the proposal was made from Aligarh and after negotiations as to the cost of advertisement the proposal was finally accepted at Calcutta. In view of the provisions of Sections 4 and 7 of the Contract Act and read with Section 17 Explanation III of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. XIV of 1882) and of the ruling above quoted I am of opinion that this application must be allowed. I set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of First Instance. The plaint will be returned for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction. The applicant will get his costs in this and in the Courts below.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //