J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THAT is plaintiff's petition whose plaint has bees ordered to be retained. for presentation in the proper court by the trial Court and whose appeal has been dismissed after having come to the conclusion that the courts at Jullundur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 12,899.18, alleging that defendant No 1 had its registered office at Kanpur and its branches at other places including; Julluudur and Calcutta Tha plaintiff Was its customer and, had dealings with its branch at Jullundur. The plaintiff imported so me sine from a broad which was shipped to be delivered at Calcutta The documents were sent by the consignors through. the Bank of Baroda Jullundur City The plaintiff arranged money, for the, retirement of those document from the Jullundur City branch of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff handed over the documents to the' Manager of the Jullundur City branch of defendant No. 1 for clearance from Calcutta, and far despatch of the consignment to Kapurthala by goods train The goods having been pledged with the bank, were to. remain under the control of the bank till their releases on payment. The document were sent by the defendant's Jullundur branch to its Calcutta branch Manager for arranging clearance and the despatch of the goods to Kapurthala by good train. The Calcutta branch engaged M/s Faloons Agency, Calcutta for the clearance of the goods without the approval of the plaintiff. The goods were despatched to Kapurthala by train. It was therefore, alleged that then clearing agents were personally responsible fox the excess amount charged by them from the plaintiff. The Manager of the Calcutta branch advanced Rs. 19,700/ - as clearance expenses and Rs. 22,704/ - as import duty and directed the Jullundur branch to debit those amounts to the account of the plaintiff. The Jullundur branch debited the amounts accordingly Thereafter the Calcutta -branch sent a bill of Rs 15,046.58 for the work done by M/s Falcons Agency Calcutta, including the sundry expenses incurred by them to their Jullundur branch and an amount of Rs. 4,65342 was credited. In this way, the plaintiff had been deprived of a huge amount of Rs. 15,046.58 by preparing fake and bogus bills. In the plaintiff the details of the amounts according to which certain sums were refundable to the plaintiff were given. On behalf of the defendants, a preliminary objection was raised that the Calcutta Courts alone had the Jurisdiction to entertain the suit became no cause of action had arisen at Jullundur Consequently a preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court as follows - Whether the Jullundur Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? The trial Court found that since no part of the cause of action appeared to have arisen against defendants Nos. 6 and 7 at Jullundur within the jurisdiction of Jullundur Courts, the Courts at Calcutta only had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The clearing agents could not at all be made liable to render any accounts in a case where no contract was made with them by the plaintiff firm or their agent and that the suit of the plaintiff firm was mainly b and substantially to realise the amounts from defendants Nos 6 and 7 who were allegedly paid in excess by the other agent of the plaintiff at Calcutta. As a result, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in a proper court. In appeal, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendants Nos - 6 and 7 and that they had done nothing which could give a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit at Jullundur. It was also found that the suit against at least three of the defendants could not be filed at Jullundur as, according to the lower appellate court, no cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts at Jullundur Reliance in this behalf was placed on clause (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short the Code) Consequently, the order of the trial Court was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, stated at the bar that his clients do not make any claim against defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and that they are given up as defendants.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that according to the pleadings of the parties, a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Jullundur courts. The learned counsel also submitted that from a perusal of the judgment under consideration, it was evident that the lower appellate Court did not properly notice the provisions of clause (c) of section 20 of the Code.;