BUDAMKAYALA APPANNA TANGUDU VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SOMISETTY SUBBARAYULU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BUDAMKAYALA APPANNA AND BROTHERS, TANGUDU VENKATESWARA RAO
Referred Judgements :-
KISHANLAL V. RAMCHANDRA
PURUSHOTHAM V. HENLEY'S TELEGRAPH WORKS
VENKALA CHALAM PILLAI V. SAJUN
PARTHASARATHY GUPTA V. CALCUTTA GLASS AND SILICATE WORKS
BANK OF MORVI V. BAERLEIN BROTHERS
UGARCHAND V. MOTI RAM
MEWA RAM VS. BUDDHU LAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This Civil Revision Petition raises a question relating to the jorisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit for damages for breach of contract. The Circumstances under which it arises are the following : The plaintiff who is a merchant at Cuddapah entered into a contract with the defendant a firm carrying on business in horse-gram, etc., in Parlakimidi, (Orissa State) for the purchase of 201 bags of horse-gram at Rs. 25-10-0 per bag and paid Rs. 250 by way of advance. The terms of the contract contained in Exhibit A-1 are as follows :-
"To-day your man Chandaluru Narasimhulu contracled for 201 bags of horse-gram at the rate of Rs. 25-10-0 per bag of 207 Ibs. with new gunny for Parlakimidi pass. For the horse-gram Contracted we will indent for wagon and as soon as the wagon is allotted we will load the goods. I have received advance rupees two hundred and fifty only. The said amount is credited to your katha. We draw a clean Hundi for Rs. 2,000. As soon as the Hundi is presented you must pay the amount. After deducting the advance, we send the pass through the Imperial Bank for the value."
(2.)Subsequently, the defendant realised a sum of Rs. 2,000 by drawing a hundi on the plaintiff in pursuance of the terms of the contract. But he did not supply any portion of the goods agreed to be sold by him to the plaintiff and thus committed breach of contract. The plaintiff has therefore brought the present suit in the Court of the District Judge, Cuddapah out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises.
(3.)One of the defences to the suit was that it was not maintainable at Cuddapah as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The plea was that as the ownership of the 201 bags of horse-gram mentioned therein was to pass to the plaintiff immediately the contract was entered into and advance was paid, that thereafter the relationship between the parties was only that of a creditor and the debtor, that their undertaking to produce a wagon and to load therein 201 bags F.O.R. Parlakimidi was only a mode of delivery agreed upon, that the whole cause of action had arisen at Parlakimidi and therefore it was only the Courts there that could entertain the suit. On the invitation of the parties, the District Judge tried it as a preliminary issue and gave a finding against the defendant. It is this order that is under rev sion now.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.