Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against Order No. 17 dated March 31, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 28598 of 2013 by which an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.
(2.) The attack to the impugned order is basically restricted on the point that the suit against an agent of a disclosed principal is not maintainable under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. The other point taken in an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction of Indian Courts and non-disclosure of cause of action against the defendant no.2 have not been agitated and, therefore, are treated to have been abandoned. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of carriage through Bill of Lading by delivery of goods at the discharge port, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from exercising lien under Clause 13 of the Bill of Lading and decree and recovery of a sum of Rs. 2 crore 56 lakh's with interest.
(3.) In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff entered into a contract with a buyer at Singapore for supply of prime cold rolled full hard coils and requisitioned 19 containers from the defendant for stuffing the goods at the plant of the plaintiff at Serampore in Hooghly District, West Bengal. The paragraph 2 of the plaint contains the statement that the defendant no.1 provides service for carriage of cargo stuffed in the container owned and operated by it under the name and style Regional Container Lines. The Goods were stuffed in the said 19 containers and were transported by the plaintiff from its plaint at Serampore, Hooghly for onward shipment to the destination through the vessel. The freight for carriage of the goods has been paid and, therefore, it is a statutory obligation of the defendant to carry the cargo safely with liability against any damage to the cargo in course of voyage. By letter dated 18th October, 2013, the plaintiff was communicated that the 14 containers were damaged requiring refurbish before becoming fit for onward transshipment and called upon the plaintiff to appoint a representative to inspect the cargo and to arrange for reworking the damaged containers indicating the estimated costs. The plaintiff reminded of the defendants of their responsibility and liability to make good the damaged containers at their costs which was followed by the reply convened the intention to dispose of the goods to recover all expenses in relation to refurbish of the containers on failure to deposit the cost therefor.;