1. This is an application in revision by the defendant Chiranjilal against whom the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,143/10/- as damages for breach of contract. The contract was entered into between the parties at Udaipur on 14-7-1949 for the supply of 'til' seeds to the plaintiff. The terms of the contract which are relevant for the purposes of the case at this stage are as follows :
1. Railway Receipt would be sent through Bank to Kishangarh and the purchaser would at once take delivery of it.
2. Seller is responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared.
2. The defendant raised an objection in the lower Court that the Jaipur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property was to be delivered at Ratlam and the contract was entered into at Udaipur. The suit could therefore be filed either at Udaipur or at Ratlam. The plaintiff replied that the seller was responsible for having the Railway Receipt prepared and sent to the plaintiff at Kishangarh who was to take delivery of it on payment of the balance of price of goods. The part of the cause of action therefore arose at Kishangarh and the Jaipur Court had jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, Jaipur District came to the conclusion that by virtue of the term of contract the Railway Receipt was to be delivered at Kishangarh and the price was to be paid there, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the lower Court and he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against this judgment of the learned District Judge, the defendant has come in revision to this Court.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the applicant that according to the terms of the contract the delivery was to be given 'bilti cut' at Ratlam which means F. O. R. Ratlam. He has argued that the delivery was thus to be given to the plaintiff at Ratlam and the contract on the side of the defendant would have been completed as soon as the goods were delivered to the railway authorities at Ratlam. As the goods were not so delivered a breach took place at Ratlam and so no part of the cause of action can be said to arise at Kishangarh. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued that the railway receipt was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh against payment of the balance of the price and therefore, an important part of the cause of action was to arise at Kishangarh. Ruling reported in -- 'Lakshmipathi Naidu v. Mohamed Ghani', AIR 1947 Mad 83 has been cited in his support by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a ruling of the LahoreHigh Court reported in -- 'Amar Nath Shadilal v. Dhondusa Dhaktappa & Brothers', AIR 1941 Lah 223.
4. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and also the rulings cited by them. Under Section 20(c), Civil P. C., a suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It has got to be seen whether in this case the cause of action wholly or in part can be said to arise at Kishangarh which is in the territorial jurisdiction of the lower Court. In the case of a contract the cause of action arises at the place where the contract was made. It also arises at the place where the contract was to be performed or performance thereof was completed. It further arises at the place wherein the performance of the contract any money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable. There can be no doubt that the contract was not made at Kishangarh. It was made at Udaipur, but a part of it was to be performed at Kishangarh inasmuch as the Railway Receipt which might have entitled the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods was to be delivered at Kishangarh.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Railway Receipt was to be sent to Kishangarh through Bank which was the agent of both the parties. It cannot therefore, be said that the Railway Receipt was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh, but it was to be delivered at Ratlam to the agent of the plaintiff. This argument of the learned counsel for the applicant does not appeal to my mind. In the first instance there is nothing to show that the Bank through which the Railway Receipt was to be sent was the agent of the-plaintiff. It has been clearly laid down in the contract that the Railway Receipt is to be sent to Kishangarh and the plaintiff would immediately take delivery of it. It was, therefore, in the contemplation of the parties that the Railway Receipt would be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh. The Railway Receipt was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Kishangarh against payment of the balance of the price after deducting the sum of Rs. 2700 which was given as an advance. A part of the balance was also therefore to be paid at Kishangarh. I have therefore, no doubt left in my mind that at least a part of the cause of action was to accrue at Kishangarh.
Ruling which has been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant does not to my mind apply to the facts of the present case. In that case there was no clear evidence as to where the price was to be paid. It was held that no part of the cause of action arose at Amritsar as the contract was completed at Bangalore. Payment was to be made at Bangalore and the delivery also was to be given there. In the present case there is no doubt that the payment of the balance of the price had to be made at Kishangarh and the Railway Receipt had also to be taken delivery of against payment of the said balance at Kishangarh.
5. In the case cited by the learned counsel the ruling reported in -- 'Ram Lal v. Bhola Nath', 42 All 619 has been referred to. In that case the goods were to be sent by rail and the Railway Receipt was to be despatched per V.P.P. It was held that because the delivery was against payment which was to be made by the buyer at his place of residence a part of the cause of action arose at the place of theresidence of the buyer. This ruling has not been disapproved by the learned Judges of Lahore High Court who decided the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. In the ruling reported in -- 'LakshmipathiNaidu v. Mohamed Ghani', AIR 1947 Mad 83cited by the learned counsel for the oppositeparty, it was held that:
'The general rule is that a suit on a breach ofcontract can be filed at any place where thecontract should have been performed in wholeor in part. Where, therefore, under a contract of sale of goods, the goods are to be delivered at place A and the price thereof is payable at place B, the Courts at B have jurisdiction to entertain a suit on breach of the contract as part of the cause of action, namely payment of price, arises at B.'
This ruling supports the stand taken up by the learned counsel for the opposite party. To my mind the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that a part of the cause of action was to arise at Kishangarh and therefore he had jurisdiction to entertain thesuit.
7. The application is dismissed with costs to the opposite party.