1. The decision of the Full Bench in Chuni Lal v. Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. Limited 29 A. 228 : A.W.N. (1907) 21 : 4 A.L.J. 80 : 2 M.L.T. 42 (F.B.) is authority for the proposition that there was one contract with the East Indian Railway Company who were liable for the overcharge (if any) wrongfully demanded from the consignees.
2. The next question is as to the interpretation of the words 'within the local limits bf whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises' (C.P.C. Section 20(c). I adopt the interpretation adopted by Knox, J., in East Indian Railway Co. v. Binda 26 Ind. Cas. 620 : 13 A.L.J. 66. I am of opinion that, if the suit be regarded as a suit for compensation for breach of contract, the cause of action arose in part at Khurja the place where the contract was made.
3. The plaintiff has come into Court demanding relief for a breach of contract and, such being the case, I consider that the Khurja Small Cause Court has jurisdiction. It will of course be open to the defendant Company to repel this plea, if they can, in the course of trial and to establish, if they can, that there was no breach of contract and that the cause of action, if any, is based upon an alleged tort committed in Bombay. If they succeed in this plea the question of jurisdiction will be affected. This point does not, however, arise at this stage. The plaintiff has chosen to go into Court alleging a cause of action founded upon a breach of contract. He is at perfect liberty to frame his plea in this manner and on a plea framed in this manner the Khurja Court has jurisdiction.
4. I accordingly set aside the order of the Small Cause Court Judge and direct him to receive the plaint again, restore it to its original number and decide the suit according to law. Costs of this application will abide the result.