Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.)This is a plaintiff's revision application against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bikaner, confirming an order of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, holding that he did not have jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.)The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Ratangarh. The defendant is also a firm carrying on business at Kota. Banshi Dhar a partner of the plaintiff firm went to Kota on 17-7-53 and placed an order for the supply of 11 bags of Dhania, 32 bags of Mungphali, 40 bags of rice and 200 bags of Jowar with the defendant firm. These goods, with the exception of 200 bags of Jowar, were consigned by the defendant by rail to Ratangarh. The consignment was made in the name of the defendant and the railway receipt was endorsed in favour of a bank at Ratangarh. Two Hundis were sent with the railway receipt to the bank. One was for Rs. 4,262/-which represented the price and other charges of the goods which were consigned and the other was for Rs. 3,000/-. The bank was instructed to present these Hundis to the plaintiff at Ratangarh and in case they were honoured it was to endorse the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver it. The Hundis were duly honoured by the plaintiff and the railway receipt was delivered. The objection of the plaintiff with regard to the price charged by the defendant was with regard to a sum of Rs. 1-1-0 only. The defendant accepted the objection and credited the plaintiff with this sum. One hundred fifty bags of Jowar were purchased by the defendant in the presence of Banshi Dhar, but they were not despatched. Fifty bags of Jowar were also purchased by the defendant after Banshi Dhar had left. These bags of Jowar were however not sent to Ratangarh for several days. In the meantime the price of Jowar fell. The plaintiff sent instructions to the defendant to sell the Jowar. He instituted the present suit in the court of the Civil judge Ratangarh for the recovery of the balance due to him out of the sum of Rs. 3,001-1-0 lying to his credit with the defendant after allowing for losses incurred in the sale of Jowar which had been purchased by the defendant on his instructions. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the court at Ratangarh had no jurisdiction to try it. The question of jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned Civil Judge. It was decided in favour of the defendant on the ground that the relationship between the parties was that of principal and agent, that the goods were ordered by the plaintiff to be purchased by the defendant at Kota, that the amount was to be paid at Kota and that no part of the cause of action arose at Ratangarh. It was alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that the goods and the railway receipt were to be delivered at Ratangarh, that payment was to be made there and that the railway receipt was actually delivered at Ratangarh and the payment was actually made there and so the court at Ratangarh had jurisdiction to try the suit. The evidence of the parties was recorded by the learned Civil Judge. He found that it had not been proved that a contract was entered into between the parties that the goods would be delivered at Ratangarh or that payment would be made there. On these findings he decided the issue against the plaintiff. The learned District Judge on appeal followed the unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Revn. No. 91 of 1956, (Firm Purshottam Dass Sanwal Das v. Chandmal Ruglal), D/- 14-11-1958 (Raj). He was of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of that case were similar to those of the present case. In that case also the defendant was Firm Purshottam Dass Sanwal Dass which is the defendant in the present case. The learned single Judge followed his own unreported earlier decision in Civil Revn. No. 155 of 1954, (Deoraj v. Kishna), D/- 31-10-1958 (Raj) and some other decisions in which it was held that a suit by a principal against a commission agent can only be instituted at the place where the latter carries on business. An analysis of the cases on which the decisions of the learned Single Judge are based goes to show that they proceed on three grounds:
(a) that the deletion of Explanation III to Section 17 of the Code of 1882 and the addition of the words "wholly or in part" between the words "the cause of action" and "arises" in the present Code did not change the law so far as suits based on contract are concerned,

(b) that every suit by a principal against a commission agent is substantially a suit for rendition of accounts which can only be instituted at the place where the latter carries on business, and

(c) that to hold otherwise would cause great inconvenience to commission agents. Taking ground (a) first the decision in the Jupiter General Insuranee Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz, AIR 1924 Rang 2 may be regarded as the leading case representative of this view.

(3.)Section 17 of the Code of 1882 ran as follows: "Subject to the limitations aforesaid, all other suits shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits, of whose jurisdiction
(a) the cause of action arises; or (b) all the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain; or (c) any of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain: Provided that either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution".