S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi under Sec. 115, C. P. C. against the order dated April 16, 1981 of the District Judge, Balotra, by which, he decided issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) A few facts deserve recall here: The plaintiff State of Rajasthan through the District Rehabilitation Officer, Barmer instituted a suit for Rs. 1,57,825. 80 p. against the defendant Union of India in the court of District Judge, Balotra on July 23, 1977. The District Administration of Barmer was in need of tents and, therefore, 170 bundles of tents and accessories were despatched by the Chief Commandant, Mana Shivir (Raipur), Madhya Pradesh to the Collector, Barmer through R. R. No. 423978 dated February 17, 1972. The tents and the accessories thereof were delivered to the Railway Administration for being sent to the Collector, Barmer. Certain letters and notices were sent to the railway administration for the delivery of the goods. Thereafter, an intimation was received from the Railway Administration on August 6, 1972 that the goods are then available at Barmer Railway Station. It is said that the Additional Collector and the District Rehabilitation Officer went to Barmer Railway Station on August 6, 1972 for taking the delivery but it was found that the packings of the goods have been seriously damaged and the tents as well as the accessories were completely soaked with water and they became unfit for the use. The delivery was not taken and a request was made to the Station Master for assessing the damages. The goods were auctioned and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was fatched in the auction. Ultimately, a notice under Sec. 80, C P. C. dated May 16, 1977 was sent to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi claiming damages amounting to Rs. 1,57,825. 80p. by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Barmer. As the payment was not made, the suit was filed as aforesaid. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds by filing a written statement on February 16, 1978. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder on July 7, 1979. Issues were fromed on February 22, 1980. In this revision petition, I am only concerned wish issue No. 6, which, when translated into English, reads as under: "whether the court cannot entertain the suit which is between the State and the Union of India ?" This issue covers the subject-matter of Art 131 of the Constitution. The learned District Judge heard the arguments on this issue. By his order dated April 16, 1981, the learned District Judge decided it in favour of the plaintiff and held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision. In pursuance of the show cause notice, appearance has been put in on behalf of the State of Rajasthan by Mr. Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate. Record has also been received. I have heard Mr. A. K. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner (Union of India) and Mr. Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.
(3.) MR. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on issue No, 6 and submitted that the dispute raised in the suit is between Union of India and the State of Rajasthan and as it is a suit for the recovery of the damages, it cannot be entertained and tried by the District Judge, Balotra, where it was instituted, for, in view of Art. 131 of the Constitution, the suit can only be tried by the Supreme Court to the exclusion of any other Court. In support of his argument, MR. Mathur placed reliance on Kerala State vs. G. M. S. Rly. Madras (l), Govt. Medical Store vs. State of Haryana etc. (2), State of Bihar vs. Union of India (3), State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (4), and Karnataka State vs. Union of India (5 ). On the other hand, while supporting the order under revision, Mr. R. Balia, learned Deputy Government Advocate pressed from my consideration that the suit which was instituted by the State of Rajasthan against the Union of India does not relate to a dispute between the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan against and that having regard to the claim put forward by the State of Rajasthan in the suit, it cannot be said that the dispute involves any question whether of law or of fact on which the existence or extent of a legal rights depends. He referred to Union of India vs. State of Madras (6) and State of Karnataka vs. South Central Railway (7 ). He also referred to the three decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz. , State of Rajasthan's case (4), State of Bihar's case (3) and Karnataka State's case (5), and submitted that even on the basis of these decisions, the suit filed by the State of Rajasthan is not exclusively triable by the Supreme Court and the learned District Judge was right when he said that it can be taken cognizance of by him. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. ;