J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court dated February 27, 1976 whereby plaint of the plaintiff -petitioner, has been returned on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) The petitioner filed the suit out of which the present revision has arisen, for the recovery of Rs. 2,700/ - against the defendants -respondent on account of the price of the goods booked through respondent No. 2 and the same having been lost in transit. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection was taken that the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit inasmuch as the parties themselves had contracted that, "The Court in Bangalore City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and mattars arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport." Consequently, a preliminary issue, to the following effect, was framed by the trial Court : Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? The parties produced their respective evidence and the trial Court came to the conclusion, after going through the same, that, it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned to the petitioner, for presentation to the proper court. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that even if it be assumed that the Bangalore Court had also the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the Explanation appended thereto, there was no valid contract between the parties ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana. According to the learned counsel it is not disputed that the cause of action did arise at Ludhiana as the goods were consigned with respondent No. 2 at Ludhiana and thus, in the absence of any valid contract between the parties, the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana was not ousted. In support of this contention, he relied upon M|S Patel Brothers v/s. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd. : A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 227. He also contended that in view of the balance of convenience and other circumstances and also the fact that the Court at Ludhiana also had the jurisdiction to try the suit, the plaint should not have been returned. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the black Sea Steap Shop U. L. Lastochkina Odessa, U. S. S. R. and another v/s. The Union of India. : A.I.R. 1976 A.P. 103.;