Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In this appeal, the only question that is raised is whether the High Courts conclusion that the Civil Court at Barnala had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by respondent No. 1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff No. 1") and Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff No. 2") is correct or not. While the trial Court held that the Barnala Court had jurisdiction, the first appellate Court held otherwise. Accepting the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC) the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the trial Courts view was correct.
(3.) The dispute arose in the following background. The plaintiff No. 2 had purchased certain articles which were booked in 29 bales. Material was booked with New Moga Transport Co., the present appellant (defendant No. 1) for transportation to Barnala. The goods were loaded in truck No. HYN 6973. The consignment reached Barnala at 9.30 a.m. on 23-5-1993 near the factory of plaintiff No. 2. On account of a fire which took place allegedly due to electric short-circuiting there was destruction of whole of the materials. Plaintiff No. 2 claimed that he had suffered loss and lodged a claim for a sum of Rs. 5, 10,000/- against the present appellant i.e. defendant No. 1. Since nothing was paid and only a non-delivery of goods certificate was issued by the appellant (defendant No. 1), respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 4,63,516/- on the basis of the surveyors report and the amount was paid to plaintiff No. 2 and due receipt was obtained. Plaintiff No. 2 on receipt of the amount executed a letter of subrogation-cum-special power of attorney, assigning, abandoning and transferring all the rights in favour of plaintiff No. 1 who claims the compensation from defendant No. 1. i.e. the present appellant. In the suit a specific plea inter alia was taken by the present appellant that the Court at Barnala had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. With reference to the consignment note, it was submitted that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the consignment note it was indicated that the Court having jurisdiction was the one situated at Udaipur. As noted above, the trial Court did not accept the plea that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction. But in appeal, the first Appellate Court upset the verdict of the trial Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court restored the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief and Court at Barnala had jurisdiction.;