Skip to content


Ganesh Prasad Vs. Bansidhar Baraunia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All121; 41Ind.Cas.904
AppellantGanesh Prasad
RespondentBansidhar Baraunia
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 20 - place of swing--cause of action--goods sent without order--plaintiff asked to keep goods--suit for charges--jurisdiction. - - the case is in no way any help with reference to the present case unless we read what we may very well do in the present case, mau in place of karachi......baraunia to recover certain monies due to him. the main item was an item said to be the value of a bale of cotton. the plaint is to the effect that the bale without any order or direction of any kind was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. the learned judge says that this is an admitted fact. it has not been shown to me that this statement of the learned district judge is, in any way, in error. other items sued for beyond the price of bale were items such as cost of warehousing the bale, railway freight paid, etc. the plaint says that when the plaintiff informed the defendant that be had refused to take delivery of the bale of cotton because he had not ordered the goods, the defendant replied in a letter asking the plaintiff to take delivery and to hold the goods at the defendant's.....
Judgment:

George Knox, A.C.

1. The contention raised in this application is that the District Court of Jhansi has wrongly held that the suit was cognizable in the Civil Court at Jhansi, The suit out of which this application has arisen was a suit brought by one Bansidhar Baraunia to recover certain monies due to him. The main item was an item said to be the value of a bale of cotton. The plaint is to the effect that the bale without any order or direction of any kind was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned Judge says that this is an admitted fact. It has not been shown to me that this statement of the learned District Judge is, in any way, in error. Other items sued for beyond the price of bale were items such as cost of warehousing the bale, railway freight paid, etc. The plaint says that when the plaintiff informed the defendant that be had refused to take delivery of the bale of cotton because he had not ordered the goods, the defendant replied in a letter asking the plaintiff to take delivery and to hold the goods at the defendant's risk. Somehow or other the matter in dispute, viz., the price of the bale of cotton got into the Courts of Cawnpore and the Courts of Cawnpore gave a decree against the plaintiff. In this application I am not concerned as to the rights or wrongs of the Cawnpore suit. That matter has not been brought into this application further than to support a plea that as the decree for payment on account of this bale was obtained against the plaintiff at Cawnpore, therefore, the suit was cognizable only in the Civil Court at Cawnpore. The suit was one, as I have already said, for recovery of monies said to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on account of the plaintiff having taken delivery of the bale of cotton under defendant's directions at defendant's risk and for monies incurred in keeping the same. As the plaint runs, it is a claim for a debt due from the defendant to the plaintiff and nothing else. The cause of action in such a case is a cause of action which arose within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Jhansi. Mau, which is situated in Jhansi, was the place where the contract was made and it was the place where the performance of the contract was completed, the money to which the suit relates also, was according to the allegation contained in the plaint, expressly or impliedly payable at Mau.

2. The learned Vakil, for the applicant, endeavoured to place the suit on a different footing on the ground that it was not a suit arising out of a contract but a suit arising out of breach of contract, but he did not refer me to any precedent in support of this part of his pleading. He sited the ease of Salig Ram v. Chuba Mal 11 Ind. Case. 712 : 8 A. L. J. 1160 : 34 A. 49. That was a case for compensation under Section 212 of the Contract Act in respect of the direct consequences of alleged neglect and misconduct on the part of the defendants who were acting as agents of the plaintiff, the neglect or misconduct took place at Karachi and nowhere else, the contract in that case too was made at Karachi, and the money due was payable at Karachi. The case is in no way any help with reference to the present case unless we read what we may very well do in the present case, Mau in place of Karachi. The application fails end is dismissed with costs.


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