OGHADMAL CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Click here to view full judgement.
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. -
(1.)This Rule is directed against an order dated the 12th Jan., 1971 of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta arising out of an application against an order dated the 3rd May, 1968 passed by the Third Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Suit No. 116 of 1966. On the 24th Feb., 1963, 167 bags of Arhar were tendered at Chanda Fort Rly. Station on the Central Railway for being carried to Ramkristopur, a station in South Eastern Railway. The consignor and the consignee were the same. The railway receipt issued by the Railways was endorsed and delivered to the petitioner against payment of the Punjab National Bank Limited, Brabourne Road Branch, Calcutta. There was a short delivery of the goods and the petitioner, on Jan. 13, 1966 instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for Rs. I, 349.56.
(2.)The first question that arose for determination before the Court of Small Causes, was with regard to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that by reason of the endorsement of the railway receipt against payment in Calcutta, the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Third Bench of that Court held that endorsement of the railway receipt against payment did not constitute part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper court. This judgment of the Third Bench was delivered on the 3rd May, 1968. Then an application was made by the plaintiff on the 10th May, 1968 under section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for the matter being heard by the Full Bench On the 12th Jan. 1971 the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes rejected the application on the ground that the application under section 38 was not maintainable as there had been no adjudication of disputes but the plaint had merely been returned for presentation to the proper court. It is against this order of the Full Bench that the present Rule has been obtained.
(3.)The application for revision was made on the 17th June, 1971. The Rule was issued on the 7th July, 1971. On the 10th May, 1972 an application was made under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. On the 11th May, 1972 the matter came up for hearing before Mr. Justice A K. Sinha but His Lordship referred it to a Division Bench. 'The reason stated by His Lordship is that there are two decisions of two learned Judges of this Court reported in (1952) 57 CWN 167 (Harimohart Vs. Dominion of India) and AIR 1959 Calcutta 563 (Alliance Assurance Co Vs. Union of India) which have taken the view that endorsement of the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration furnishes cause of action and the plaintiff is entitled to sue within the jurisdiction of that court in which such an endorsement was effected. But, Mr. Justice Sinha points out, there is another single Bench decision reported in AIR 1960 Calcutta, 458 (Fushraj Thanmell Vs. Union of India ) in which a different view was taken. The latter case was followed in a decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 282 (Singamsetti Ramarao Vs. Union of India) . In the Andhra Pradesh case it was laid down that endorsement of a railway receipt by the consignor in favour of a third party would not constitute a part of the cause of action.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.