Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. -
(1.) There are no merits at all in this civil revision petition as no part of the cause of action in the petitioner's suit for damages arose in this State. The point for consideration is whether both the Courts below went wrong in holding that the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for damages filed against the defendants for supplying them fully bales of inferior cotton, said to differ much from the sample cotton shown to them before the sale. The contract was admittedly, entered into at Chanda, in Madhya Pradesh, on 25-7-1943, and the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, would have, of course, no jurisdiction, if no part of the transaction arose within its own limits. Both the Courts below held that the delivery of the cotton was to be at Chanda & that the price also was to bo paid there, judging from the correspondence. Siddi Subba Rao and Anr. vs. Pukhraj Kocher Ginning and Pressing Factory Firm carr... Page 2 of 3 j Kocher Ginning and Pressing Factory Firm carr... Page 2 of 3
(2.) Mr. P. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the petitioners plaintiffs, urged that both the lower Courts went wrong in holding that the District Munsifs Court, Peddapuram, had no jurisdiction, as it was a 'sale by sample' and the 50 bales of cotton, sold as per sample, were to be despatched by the vendors, the defendants, from Chanda to Pittapuram 'via' Waltair, and were received at Waltair and carted to Pittapuram and examined only there by the plaintiffs. If that had been so, no doubt, both Courts would have been wrong in holding that the suit should have been filed only in Madhya Pradesh, as it could have been filed also at Peddapuram, But the lower Courts have not gone on that footing, but on the footing that the sale was not merely by sample but after showing the 50 bales of cotton, the 'specific goods' as per sample, at Chanda itself, to P. W. 2 the plaintiffs' agent who examined it and bought it. So, it is a case of sample being shown first, and 'the specific goods next,' not at all an uncommon thing in India. It is a common experience in any shop in India for a buyer to be shown a sample of rice and then a bag of rice said to correspond to it. It is also possible for the bag shown later on not to correspond with the sample shown earlier though it is shown at that very place and is accepted by the buyer under a misapprehension that it corresponds to the sample. But where specific goods are shown, inspected and bought the cause of action would arise only at the place of sale (See -' Parthasarathy Gupta v. Calcutta Glass & Sillicate Works (19361 Ltd,', 1948-2 Mad LJ 101).
(3.) Paragraph 0 of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the defendants' contention was that the plaintiffs' agent, P. W. 2 was shown at Chanda itself the 50 bales of cotton which were sold to the plaintiffs, and that he agreed to buy 'that cotton' at Rs. 180 per bale, and that new Chandabani cotton was selling at Rs. 400 per bale at that very time. Whether the plaintiffs' agent, P. W. 2, was deceived into believing that the 50 bales of cotton shown to him at Chanda and bought by him was of the same quality as the sample shown to him prior to his being shown the bulk, or not, need not be discussed here. For the purpose of jurisdiction, even if he was so deceived, the suit ought to be filed only in Madhya Pradesh, where he saw the articles in bulk and bought them, though the bales were subsequently despatched to Waltair for taking them by cart to Pittapuram, and though the alleged fraud was actually discovered only on inspection at Pittapuram. Mr. Rangachari, for the defendants, urges that they were got despatched to Waltair only at the instance of P. W. 2 who had been shown the fifty bales and had accepted them on behalf of the plaintiffs, and that the showing of the sample before is immaterial, and that the ruling in -- 'Jwarmal Shivanath v. Maji Ibrahim', 1950-1 Mad LJ 38, will not apply. I agree. Mr. P. M. srinivasa Iyengar says that it would be very difficult for anybody to inspect the quality of pressed cotton kept in bales, and that for that reason because there was no good chance of reasonable inspec-tion for P. W. 2, Pittapuram, where the bales were ultimately received & opened & examined & found to be of inferior quality, would be the place where part of the cause of action arose, as a reasonable inspection could be had only there, & so the suit could be filed in the District Munsif Court, Peddapuram. I cannot agree. Siddi Subba Rao and Anr. vs. Pukhraj Kocher Ginning and Pressing Factory Firm carr... Page 3 of 3 j Kocher Ginning and Pressing Factory Firm carr... Page 3 of 3 In modern times of complicated machinery and manufacture, it is not reasonable to expect that all articles sold or brought would be in their elementary process or stages, and buyers are expected to be competent enough to deal with articles in various stages of manufacture or processing and judge their quality before buying. Thus, a man buying a car need not have the engine and other parts dis-membered and shown to him, and pressed cotton bales need not be unpressed and shown to him. If he chooses to buy the things after seeing them, the suit will only lie at that place. P. W. 2's inexperience or folly or gullibility cannot change the 'jurisdiction.' Where the specific articles purchased have been shown to the purchaser at the place of contract, as here to P. W. 2, the jurisdiction will only be in the Courts of that place, & not in Courts in the place to which the articles may bo subsequently consigned at the instance of the buyer. So, the Courts below were right.;