S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE challenge here is to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Patiala to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit filed by the Plaintiffs' firm Ms Jain Solvent Oil Mills (P) Limited, Patiala seeking the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,56,917.17 Ps. from the Defendants firm M/s Bhardwaj and Company, Bombay.
(2.) THE dispute here arose with regard to the supply of rice bran by the Plaintiffs' firm at Patiala to the Defendants M/s. Bhardwaj and Company, Bombay. The claim of the Plaintiffs being founded upon breach of contract. In the suit, a plea was raised by the Defendants that the Court at Patiala had no territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose there. The trial Court, however, negatived this plea holding that as goods had been entrusted to the railways at Patiala, delivery thereof to the Defendants buyers must be deemed to have taken place at Patiala in terms of Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. It is the legality and correctness of this order which now stands challenged in this petition.
(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that the contract in this case had been entered into at Bombay and in terms thereof the price of the goods was also payable at Bombay, with the further condition in the contract between the parties that the price of the goods would be F.O.R. Bombay rail -head. It was upon this aspect that great stress was laid by Mr. K. S. Thapar, counsel for the Defendants. The contention urged being that by virtue of this clause in the contract delivery of the goods to the Defendants could only take place at Bombay and at no other place. Reference in this behalf was also made to the statement of P.W. 1 Raj Kumar Jain, a Director of the Plaintiffs' firm, where he accepted as correct the fact that delivery of goods was F.O.R. Bombay and further that there was no mention in any documents exchanged between the parties that goods were to be despatched from Patiala.;