B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order, dated 8 -4 -1996 passed in Suit No. 188 of 1992 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muzaffarnagar. The facts giving rise to the revision are as follows.
(2.) THE opposite Party No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of money against the applicant and Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. The Suit was contested by all the defendants. One of the pleas raised by the applicant before the trial Court was that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit in view of Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On this plea, issue No. 5 was framed by the learned trial Court and after hearing the parties, it decided the issue against the defendant -revisionist and has held that it has the jurisdiction to try the Suit. Aggrieved by that, the present revision has been preferred. I have heard Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and I have also gone through the entire record.
(3.) THE copy of the plaint has been filed, according to which the plaintiff opposite Party No. 1 consigned 960 bags of sugar through Railways to Jhalarapatin, out agency to be delivered to Opposite Party No. 3. That the plaintiff was consignor as well as the consignee. That the papers were sent through the Bank, Respondent No. 2. That the employee of the Railways i.e. revisionist in collision with the opposite party No. 3 delivered sugar to opposite party No. 3 though the opposite party No. 1 was the consignee. That the Bank should not have cleared the papers without the payment. That sugar have been taken by the opposite party No. 3, but the payment has not been made. The plaintiff, therefore, requested for recovery of the amount from the applicant as well as from the opposite parties No. 2 and 3.;