Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff, Messrs Lyallpur Motor Company, against Messrs Mohan Lal and Company of Bombay for the recovery of Rs. 3,138.32 nP., as the balance of the price, with interest, of goods supplied to the Defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,802.08 nP. with proportionate costs, but disallowed the claim to interest. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge, Ludhiana, and it was heard by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who reversed the decision of the trial Court on the question of jurisdiction and held that the Ludhiana Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This is the only point that has been debated before me in this second appeal.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. Sodhi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is that the transaction took place through correspondence and the cont -tract was completed at Ludhiana when the Plaintiff agreed to supply the goods, whereas the contention of Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent, is that the contract was completed at Bombay when the so -called counter -offer by the Plaintiff was accepted by the Respondent at Bombay. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be proper to set out the relevant correspondence that took place between the parties on the subject. Exhibit P. 57 is the letter dated the 23rd September 1957 by the Defendant -Company to the Plaintiff Company. The relevant part of this letter reads thus - We have pleasure to place with you our order for BRIGHT HEX NUTS, size 5/16' made from Bright Bars 'BSF' threads to fit in BSW English make Snail Brand or such other Spanners. The requirements per month are indicated and samples of the nuts were demanded for approval before the bulk supply, was to start. The supplies were to start from the 15th of October, 1957.
(3.) IN reply to this letter, the Plaintiff wrote on the 25th September, 1957 (Exhibit P. 23). as follows: - We shall be obliged if you so kindly send us one sample of the nut you require, then only we shall consider if we are in a capacity to meet with your supplies. It seems that the Defendant sent the sample and the Plaintiff made some nuts according to the sample and sent the same to the Defendant for approval. While sending further samples, a letter dated the 29th October, 1957 (Exhibit P. 29) was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The relevant part of that letter reads thus - We are today sending some samples of the nuts. If they are approved, please inform us soon. We have also written you our position in our letter dated 26th instant and, therefore, request you to let us know telegraphically in case you agree with our rate, Rs. 5/ - per gross ex -godown. To this letter the Defendant sent the replies, Exhibits P. 58 and P. 59, dated the 30th October 1957 and 5th November 1957 respectively. The relevant parts of these letters read as below: - Exhibit P. 58. As regards the revised price of Rs. 5/ -per gross, it is not proper business practice to ask for a higher price after the order has been accepted once. However, looking to the urgency of our requirements, we agree to the increased price and would request you to please look into the matter and arrange to supply the goods immediately. It may be mentioned that the reference to the order having been accepted is without foundation, for, at this point of time, there was no acceptance whatever of any order. The parties were still at the stage of negotiation. Exhibit P. 59. As regards the revised price, we have already confirmed our acceptance of Rs. 5/ - per gross. We also agree to your sending the goods by motor transport duly insured for home delivery, as we are in urgent need of the material In between the letters Exhibits P. 58 and P. 59, the Plaintiff had written a letter on the 1st of November 1957 (Exhibit P. 30) agreeing to supply the goods ordered. It is, therefore, clear that the contract was concluded when the letter, Exhibit P.30, was written. Till then there was no concluded contract. This view finds support from the decision of the Privy Council in Harvey v. Facey, 1893 A.C. 552. The head -note clearly discloses the facts as well as the actual decision, and I am therefore merely quoting the same: - Where the Appellants telegraphed, 'Will you sell us B. H. P. ? Telegraph lowest cash price, and the Respondent telegraphed in reply, 'Lowest price for B. H. P. £ 900, 'and then the Appellants telegraphed, 'We agree to buy B. H. P. for £900 asked by you. Please send us your title -deed in order that we may get early possession,' but received no reply: - Held, that there was no contract. The final telegram was not the acceptance of an offer to sell, for none had been made. It was itself an offer to buy, the acceptance of which must be expressed and could not be implied. This decision was relied upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Col. D. I, Mac Pherson v. M. N. Appanna : A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 184, and, in my view, this decision concludes the matter, and it should have been held that the part of cause of action arose at Ludhiana, where the contract was concluded.;