V.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) M/s. Jaipur Udyog Limited, which is the second defendant in a suit filed by the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short the IDPL) principally for recovery of some amount paid in advance for supply of cement to it on account of the failure of Jaipur Udyog Limited to do so has assailed in this revision under Section 115 C. P C. the order passed by the Civil Judge, Dehradun on Aug. 4. 1979 negativing the obiection to the jurisrdiction of the court at Dehradun to try the suit. M/s. Bharat Overseas (P) Limited which is the first defendant in the suit is also impleaded as a opposite party in this revision, it is said that IDPL needed cement for its Antibiotics Plant at Virbha-dra near Rishikesh in the district of Dehradun. 300 metric tonnes of cement were allotted to it by the Government of India in the Ministry of Industrial Development. M/s. Bharat Overseas (P) Limited, who were the sole selling agents to Jaipur Udyog, were authorised to supply the aforesaid quantity of cement from Sawai Madhopur Cement Factory of Jaipur Udyog. This was by letter of Jan. 31. 1974. The Controller of Purchase and Stores of IDPL of its Antibiotics Plant at Virbhadra was designated as the purchaser. In this letter it was also mentioned t at cement was required at the Antibiotic Siding of the Railways at Virbhadra. This letter also expressly mentioned that the order of release was being made under the provisions of the Cement Control Order. 1967 and that the sale will be a direct deal between M/s. Bharat Overseas (P.) Limited and the purchaser. On Feb. 4. 1974. the Bharat Overseas (P) Limited describing themselves as sole setting agents to Jaipur Udyog Limited wrote to the Controller of Stores and Purchase of the IDPL at the Virbhadra address requiring the latter to book an order with the necessary advance at the rate of Rs. 6500 per wagon (24MT) in terms of the authorisation of Jan. 31. 1974. The IDPL deposited a sum of Rs. 72.000/- through a Demand Draft in the State Bank of India at New Delhi in respect of 300 MT of cement and then through a registered letter of Aprl. 6. 1974 intimated the Bharat Overseas (P) Limited about it Through the same communication a formal supply order was made to Bharat Overseas mentioning therein that the consignee was to be the Assistant Stores Officer (Receipts) of the Antibiotics Plants at Virbhadra near Rishikesh to whom loading intimation was to be sent and the supply was to be made at Railway Station Antibiotics Siding Virbha-dra/Rishikesh. The letter referred to the extension of the period during which supply order was to be made under the authorisation by the Government at India. It also required M/s. Bharat Overseas to acknowledge receipt of the order and expedite supplies. The letter also mentioned that railway receipt and despatch advice was to be sent to the Assistant Stores Officer Virbhadra and that credit balance was to be refunded to the IDPL. Virbhadra by demand draft. There is on record a printed communication addressed by the Bharat Overseas (P) Limited to the Jaipur Udyog bearing April 3. 1974 to be the date of its issue. This document contains instruction to despatch 300 MT cement to the Controller of Purchase and Stores. IDPL Unit Antibiotics Plant. Post Office Virbhadra and delivery of cement under it was to be made at Antibiotics Siding at Virbhadra. Loading advice, despatch advice and the railway receipt under this communication were to be sent to the buyer at its address at Virbhadra. It also mentions that the advance of Rupees 72,000/- had been received through Receipt No. 6078 dt. Mar. 30. 1974 and further that the supply was to be made to the extent of the amount lying to the credit of the party from whom Central sales tax was to be charged at full rate. It also mentions that the indentor/consignee was requested to check particulars with reference to the supply order and to intimate within seven days discrepancies, if any partucularly with regard to the order number, date, quantity name and address of consignee afid destination station. On the reverse, the document contains, what is described in it as "terms and conditions of business" of which the last, namely, condition No. 11 says that "the contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the court where the company's sale office accepting payment in respect of the order is situated." Another condition which may be noticed is condition No. 2 which says that "once the consignment is handed to the carrier and, a receipt is obtained, the responsibility of the company ceases and that "the Company does not accept any liability for any delay, shortage, damages or loss of goods in transit. Claim should be lodged with the carrier by the buyers directly-" There is then a communication dt. Mar. 29. 1975 from the Bharat Overseas (Ft Limited to the Assistant Stores Officer of the Antibiotics Plant at Virbhadra intimating despatch of 95.20 MT of cement in 1904 bagg and further that a sum of Rs. 42.155.10 paise was refundable from the advance of Rs. 72,000/-after debiting therefrom the price and the packing freight and sales tax charges on account of the supply made. It refers to the sales order dt. April 3. 1974 and to the despatch advice as well as the railway receipt of the same date, namely, Mar. 29. 1975. Thereafter, there is a letter of May 9. 1977 of the Jaipur Udyog addressed to all stockists of Bharat Overseas (P) Limited and their sub-agents which mentions that the Jaipur Udyog Limited accepts in principle the liability of the advances received by M/s. Bharat Udyog (P) Limited for supply of cement from the company's cement work at Sawai Madhopur.
(2.) The plaintiff claimed that when the remaining quantity of cement was not supplied by the Jaipur Udyog it was compelled to serve a registered notice dt. July 19. 1977 calling upon it to make the payment of the sum of Rs. 42.155.10 paise which was outstanding against it. This notice was followed by another notice of Sept. 14. 1977 requesting M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd.. to expedite payment failing which action may have to be taken in the law court at Dehradun. As it also failed to evoke any response, a suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount was filed at Dehradun by the IDPL in which a preliminary objection was taken by M/s Jaipur Udyog (P) Limited about the jurisdiction of the Court in proceeding in the matter. When the objection was overruled by the order impugned in this revision. M/s. Jaipur Udvog (P) Limited came to this Court.
(3.) Sri V. K. S. Chaudbary has appeared for the applicant. Jaipur Udyog (P) Limited. His submission is that on admitted facts the court at Dehradun had no jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit and that the learned Civil Judge was in error in holding otherwise. Sri Rajesh Tandon has appeared for the plaintiff IDPL and has supported the order of the Civil Judge.;