1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Cannanore in O. S. No. 331 of 1949.
2. P. Anandan, proprietor, Sri Sai Eaba's Textiles, Cannanore entered into an agreement with Messrs. Gulab Chand Dhanraj, cloth merchants and commission agents, 12 Narmal Lohia Lane, Calcutta in regard to the supply of textile goods by the forner who was a manufacturer to the latter who were customers. The agreement between them contained an important covenant namely para. 7 of Ex. A. 1, the orders are accepted by the manufacturers at their office at Cannanore and the payments are all to be made at Cannanore and the cause of action in all these cases will arise only at Cannanore. In these circumstances in regard to a certain transaction namely a contract which was entered into by the agent of the plaintiff at Calcutta and which was subsequently confirmed by the principal at Cannanore a suit was filed by the defendants in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta claiming certain reliefs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff promptly objected and pointed out that under the terms of the contract the defendants herein were not entitled to file a suit there at all and that the Small Cause Court at Calcutta could not entertain such a plaint. This plea was overruled by the Small Cause Judge as well as by the Full Bench which confirmed the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in regard to the same contract in the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1897-14-0 and interest as damages from the defendants for breach of contract and also for costs of the Suit.
4. The plea raised by the defendants was that by reason of the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge at Calcutta this suit was barred by the principle of 'res judicata'.
5. The learned District Munsif overruled this contention and hence this civil revision petition.
6. In this civil revision petition I am of opinion that the learned District Munsif was perfectly correct in holding that the decree of the Small Cause Court did not operate as 'res judicata*. I have already reproduced Clause 7 of Ex. A. 1 which showed that both the parties entered into a covenant that all causes of action arising between them relating to the transactions between them should only be agitated in Cannanore. That this covenant is quite legal, is laid down in -- 'Raghavayya v. Vasudevayya Chetti', AIR 1944 Mad 47 (A) following the previous decision in -- 'Achratal Kesavtal Mehta & Co. v. Vijayam and Co.', AIR 1925 Mad 1145 (B). This ruling of the Madras High Court has also been followed by the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Allahabad and in fact no decision contrary to this decision has been cited either before the lower Court or here. In other-words by reason of that contract embodied in Clause 7 the Small Cause Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all and therefore when the Court could not entertain the suit the questions that it has the privilege to' decide rightly or wrongly and that in such a case the decision would be binding on the parties and that it would operate as 'res judicata' do not arise at all here. The learned District Munsif was, therefore, rightly of the opinion that the decision of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta should be considered as a decision of a Court of incompetent jurisdiction and, therefore, the decision of that Court could not be 'res judicata' to shut out the plaintiff from the Cannanore Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.