M.M. Dutt, J. - (1.) This Rule is at the instance of the defendant Union of India and is directed against order No. 74 dated April 18, 1977.
(2.) It appears that the court below by its order no. 61 dated October 29, 1976 heard issue no. 5 regarding the jurisdiction of the court below. It has been held that the court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for review of the said order of the court below. It has been stated in this application for review that there is an error apparent od the face of the record inasmuch as the court below did not notice the statement in the plaint wherein the plaintiff has stated that the consignments were despatched from Always Railway Station to Shalimar Railway Station. Admittedly both these stations are beyond the jurisdiction of the court below. The court below, however, has placed reliance on paragraph 11 of the plaint wherein it has been categorically stated that the cause of action arose at 11, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta. It is not disputed that 11, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta is within the jurisdiction of the court below, it has been observed by the court below that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In our view, the court below is right in making that observation. It may be that under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, the court will have jurisdiction to try the suit only if the place to which the consignments were delivered was within its territorial jurisdiction. At the same time, it may also be contended under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court below will have jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case, as stated already, the cause of action has been alleged to have arisen at 11, Garden Reach Calcutta, which is within the jurisdiction of the court below. In these circumstances, we do not think that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as contended on behalf of the petitioner. The order of the Court below is accordingly affirmed and this Rule is discharged There will be no order for costs.
(3.) D.C. Chakravorty, J. - I agree. Rule discharged.;