1. Associated Traders and Engineers (P) Ltd., the petitioner in both these petitions, are carrying on business as carrier and transport operator. In respect of certain goods entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents in the two petitions for transport, the goods did not reach the destination and were lost en route. The respondents, therefore, filed actions against the petitioner and claimed the value of the goods entrusted for transport. One of the defences raised by the petitioner before the lower court was that as per the terms of the contract entered into between the parties all claims against the petitioner should be sued for only in the courts in Delhi city and that the said condition had also been incorporated as Clause 17 in the G. R. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. After proceeding to consider the claims on merits, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the amounts claimed by the plaintiff in each of the two actions.
2. It is to contend that the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in refusing to uphold the objection raised by the petitioner that no other court, except the court in Delhi city, had jurisdiction to entertain the actions, is wrong and unsustainable, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the courts in Delhi city, the registered office of the petitioner is situated in Delhi and as such the teamed Subordinate Judge was not justified in brushing aside the objection rawed by the petitioner in the question of jurisdiction solely on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the limits of the courts situate in Delhi city. In order to contend that the word Corporation occurring in explanation II to Section 20, Civil P. C. would include within its ambit companies registered under the Indian Companies Act also, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., : 3SCR314 . No doubt, the contention of the learned counsel in this behalf if well founded. The learned Subordinate Judge bas clearly failed to see that even if no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the courts situate in Delhi city, nevertheless, these courts would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the actions of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the registered office of the petitioner-company is situated in the city of Delhi.
4. Notwithstanding my upholding the grievance of the revision petitioner in this behalf, no relief can be given in these revision petitions on account of the fact that both the suits have been tried fully and judgments have been rendered on merits against the revision petitioner. In cases of this kind, it is well known that where to an action, judgment has been rendered on merits, the judgment ought not to be interfered with by an appellate court merely on account of an objection taken by one of the parties regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, unless the aggrieved party is able to establish that there had been a failure of justice in any manner by the trial court having proceeded with the trial and rendering a judgment in the case on merits. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, : 1SCR117 , the Supreme Court has laid down as follows--
'Section 11 (Suits Valuation Act) enacts that notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Civil P. C., an objection that a court which has no jurisdiction over a suit or appeal had exercised it by reason of over-valuation or under valuation, should not be entertained by an appellate court, except as provided in the section.......The drafting of the section has come in--and deservedly--for considerable criticism; but amidst much that is obseure and confused, there is one principle Which stands out clear and conspicuous. It is that a decree passed by a court, which would have had no jurisdiction to hear a suit or appeal but for over-valuation or under-valuation, is not to be treated as, what it would be but for the section, null and void, and that an objection to jurisdiction based on over-valuation or under-valuation, should be dealt with under that section and not otherwise......... With reference to objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, Section 21, Civil P. C. enacts that no objection to the place of suing should be allowed by an appellate or revisional court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. It is the same principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99, Civil P. C. and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same namely that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the Legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits.'
5, Admittedly, the court which rendered the judgments against the revision petitioner did have jurisdiction to entertain the actions. But for the stipulation in the contract between the parties, the revision petitioner can have nothing to say about the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. Such a court having entertained the actions and rendered judgment on merits, the appellate op revisional court will not set at naught the judgments rendered by that court, unless the aggrieved party shows that there has been failure of justice in any manner. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is not able to show in what manner there has been any failure of justice by the learned Subordinate fudge of Coimbatore entertaining the suits and disposing them of on merits. Consequently, both the revision petitions fait and they are dismissed. No costs.