Skip to content


Khimji Jivraju Shettu Vs. Sa Purushotam Jutani and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1884)ILR7Mad171
AppellantKhimji Jivraju Shettu
RespondentSa Purushotam Jutani and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 57 - return of plaint--joinder of causes of action--want of jurisdiction. - .....over all the causes of action. the joinder, then, of the claim in respect of the partnership transactions with the claim on account of the agency transactions would not give the court jurisdiction in respect of the agency transactions. the question is, whether the court had, independently of this joinder, jurisdiction to determine the claim arising out of the agency transactions.2. it is not alleged that the defendants made any contract of agency at telli-cherry. presumably the contract was made at bombay, where they reside and carry on business; it was performed at bombay in so far as regarded the sale, purchase, or despatch of goods; and it is not shown that there was any express stipulation as to the place at which an account should be rendered or any balance resulting in favour.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. It is a pre-requisite of the right to join in one suit more than one cause of action against a defendant that the Court to which the plaint is presented should have jurisdiction over all the causes of action. The joinder, then, of the claim in respect of the partnership transactions with the claim on account of the agency transactions would not give the Court jurisdiction in respect of the agency transactions. The question is, whether the Court had, independently of this joinder, jurisdiction to determine the claim arising out of the agency transactions.

2. It is not alleged that the defendants made any contract of agency at Telli-cherry. Presumably the contract was made at Bombay, where they reside and carry on business; it was performed at Bombay in so far as regarded the sale, purchase, or despatch of goods; and it is not shown that there was any express stipulation as to the place at which an account should be rendered or any balance resulting in favour of the defendants paid. If any such balance had to be remitted to Tellicherry, it would have been remitted at the cost of the plaintiff. It does not appear, then, that the place where the obligation was made was other than the place where performance was contemplated, and the question does not arise whether the term 'cause of action' in Section 17 is to be taken in its limited or restricted sense. The Subordinate Judge rightly held he had not jurisdiction to deal with the claim respecting the agency transactions.

3. It is next objected that he should have returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. The plaint asserted two causes of action, one triable in the district--though by the Munsif and not by the Subordinate Judge--and the other triable by the High Court of Bombay. 'Unless the plaintiff's could lawfully unite them, the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction over either. He should have returned the plaint, although, without amendment, it could not have been presented in either Court which had jurisdiction over either cause of action. 'We shall set aside the decree dismissing the suit, and direct the Subordinate Judge to return the plaint with the proper endorsement as required in Section 57. But we also direct the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs in all Courts.


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