Skip to content


Vasant Gambhir Navgale, Metal Merchants Vs. Bhawanish Udyog Metal Merchants - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 797 of 1985
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H319
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 20
AppellantVasant Gambhir Navgale, Metal Merchants
RespondentBhawanish Udyog Metal Merchants
Cases Referred and Amritsar Transport Court. Ltd. v. S. S. Sohan Lal
Excerpt:
.....the plaintiff failed to pay the charges, the goods could not be returned to it. since the plaintiff failed to pay the necessary expenses incurred by the defendant, the goods could not be sent back to it at jagadhri......dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this revision petition in this court.2. the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the court at jagadhri had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as neither the defendant lived there, nor any cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the jurisdiction of the court at jagadhri, as contemplated under s. 20, civil p.c. and, therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the court at jagadhri had no jurisdiction to try the suit, but the said finding has been reversed, in appeal, arbitratily and on surmises and conjectures. according to the learned counsel, there was no privity of contract between the parties as such. the defendant agreed to take delivery of the goods and hand over the same to m/s......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff M/s. Bhawanish Udyog Metal Merchants, Jagadhri, sent the goods wroth Rs. 1,490.30 to M/s. Vilas Metals, Bhusawal (Maharashtra) vide bill dt. Jan. 1, 1980. The said concern did not accept the goods. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the defendant-appellant to take delivery of the consignment and to hand over the same to M/s. Vilas Metals, Bhusawal, against the payment of the amount. In case M/s. Vilas Metals, Bhusawal, refused to take delivery of the goods, the defendant was asked to return the same to the plaintiff. It seems that the defendant took delivery of the goods from the railways and on Mar. 12, 1982, informed the plaintiff that it should send Rs. 505.75 towards various charges and on receipt of that amount, the goods would be despatched to it. The plaintiff felt that the amount so demanded by the defendant was unreasonable and unfounded and, therefore, did not accept the demand. Consequently, the goods could not be returned to it. It filled the present suit in the Court at Jagadhri for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- from the defendant on account of the price of the goods and the interest. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the Court at Jagadhri had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to make the payment of Rs. 505.75. So, the goods could not be returned to it at Jagadhri. The trial Court framed the following preliminary issue:

'Whether the present Court has jurisdiction to entertain this present suit as alleged?'

It came to the conclusion that the Court at Jagadhri had no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present suit as no cause of action had arisen there. Consequently, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff. In the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the defendant withheld the goods resulting in loss to the plaintiff and, therefore, the Court at Jagadhri had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Court at Jagadhri had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as neither the defendant lived there, nor any cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagadhri, as contemplated under S. 20, Civil P.C. and, therefore, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Court at Jagadhri had no jurisdiction to try the suit, but the said finding has been reversed, in appeal, arbitratily and on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned counsel, there was no privity of contract between the parties as such. The defendant agreed to take delivery of the goods and hand over the same to M/s. Vilas Metals, Bhusawal and in case it did not accept the same, they would be returned to the plaintiff at Jagadhri; provided the necessary charges incurred by it were paid. Since the plaintiff failed to pay the charges, the goods could not be returned to it.

Thus, argued the learned counsel, no cause of action or any part thereof arose at Jagadhri. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff--respondent, submitted that since the goods were to be sent at Jagadhri by the defendant, the Court at Jagadhri had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Besides, argued the learned counsel, the plaintiff suffered the loss at Jagadhri and, therefore, he could file the suit at Jagadhri itself. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Fertilizers Corpn. of India v. Sanjit Kumar Ghosh, AIR 1965 Punj 107; State v. Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bom 197 and Amritsar Transport Court. Ltd. v. S. S. Sohan Lal, AIR 1957 J. and K.7.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the Court at Jagadhri had no jurisdiction to entertain suit.

4. There was no privity of contract between the parties as such. The defendant merely agreed to take delivery of the goods on behalf of the plaintiff its request. The could be returned it at Jagadhri if the necessary expenses incurred by the defendant were paid. Since the plaintiff failed to pay the necessary expenses incurred by the defendant, the goods could not be sent back to it at Jagadhri. On these facts, no cause of action whatsoever or any part thereof arose at Jagadhri. The mere fact that the goods were to be sent at Jagadhri or that the plaintiff suffered the loss at Jagadhri is of no consequence and has no relevancy to determine the question of the territorial jurisdiction. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case. The view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was correct and the same has been reversed in appeal illegally.

5. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the trial Court returning the plaint to the plaintiffs is restored with costs.

6. Revision allowed.


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