JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff who resides and carries on business at Jodhpur wrote to the defendant who carries on business at Bombay asking him to quote the prices of some machines and the terms under which he was willing to supply them. In reply the defendant sent letter Ex. 1 from Bombay on 11. 12. 58. In this letter the price of Band Saw Machine (item No. 5 at page 6 of the letter) was quoted at Rs. 1,725/-less 10% and 5% resale discount F. O. R. Works. It was mentioned that Central Sales Tax will be extra, that insurance will be extra at 1% against breakage risk in transit, if required, and that payment of 33% was to be made in advance along with the order and the balance against railway receipt through bank. The plaintiff wrote letter Ex. 6 on 3. 4. 59 to the defendant placing an order for the above machine. He accepted the terms mentioned in the letter but did not send an advance of 33 per cent of the price. He requested that the bill may be presented to him along with the railway receipt through his banker (the Jodhpur Commercial Bank Ltd. , Jalori Gate) for arranging payment. He also mentioned that the Central Sales Tax may be charged at 1 per cent only. The defendant sent a reply Ex. 3 on 6. 4. 59 to the plaintiff agreeing to despatch the machine in accordance with the order of the plaintiff on condition that a sum of Rs. 300/- was sent to him by a bank draft as advance. On 15. 4. 59 the plaintiff sent a bank draft for Rs. 300/- to the defendant with letter Ex. 4. The case of the defendant was that he sent a contract form along with letter Ex. A. 4 on 20. 4. 59 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not admit having received it. According to the defendant the contract was on a pink form like Ex. A. 3. It is stated in this contract form as follows : - "we confirm to have booked your order for the following subject to the conditions and terms overleaf. " The terms and conditions are printed on the reverse of form Ex. A 3. Term No. 8 runs - "all disputes arising out of this order will be settled in Bombay Court only. On the basis of the above term the defendant contended that the court at Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to try the present suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff for damages for breach of contract on the allegation that the machine supplied to him was damaged and unfit for use. Ex. A. 2 is the carbon copy of the contract dated 18. 4. 59 which was maintained in the office of the defendant. Although it is printed on the face of it that the order is being booked subject to the conditions and terms over-leaf, these terms and conditions are not printed on the back of this copy. The trial court was satisfied that a contract form was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff along with letter Ex. A. 4 dated 20. 4. 59, but it was not satisfied that the terms were printed on the back of the contract form. This finding is challenged before me on behalf of the defendant. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the contract form which was sent to the plaintiff along with letter Ex. A. 4 was similar to the pink form Ex. A. 3 filed in this Court and contained terms and conditions printed on the reverse of it. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the contract was complete as soon as he despatched the letter Ex. 4 on 16. 4. 59 containing a bank draft for Rs. 300/ -. I am of the opinion that this contention must be accepted. As the contract was once completed no further condition could be imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff unilaterally. Term No. 8 printed on the reverse of the contract form is not binding on the plaintiff as he never agreed to it. If the defendant wanted to impose this term on the plaintiff he should not have despatched the goods before obtaining his assent to this term. He sent this form on 20. 4. 59. On the very next day namely 21. 4. 59 goods were despatched to the plaintiff from Batala railway station in Punjab. It is noteworthy that contract form the contains a column for the signature of the person placing an order. It is only when the contract form is thus signed by the other party that these terms and conditions printed overleaf become binding and enforceable. 10. The machine was consigned to the defendant at Jodhpur and the railway receipt was presented through bank to the plaintiff at Jodhpur. As was pointed out in Firm Shah Chandanmal Vs. Hazarilal (1) the delivery of goods in these circumstances took place at Jodhpur and the money was also paid at Jodhpur. I may here refer to two decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Commissioner Vs. P. M. Rathod & Co. (2) and Income Tax Commissioner Vs. Bhopal Textiles Ltd. (3 ). In Income Tax Commissioner V. P. M. Rathod & Co. (2) the assessee were a firm of manufacturers of perfumery and hair oils at Ratlam. They sent goods ordered by customers by V. P. P. or by rail. In the latter case the railway receipts in favour of self were sent through a bank deliverable against payment of the demand draft drawn upon the buyers and sent with the railway receipts. This price when received by the bank was sent by the bank by means of bank draft to the assessee at Ratlam. It was held that a payment to the post office by the buyer was payment to the seller and at the place where the goods were delivered and payment was made. The post office was not an agent of the buyer. Whatever be the jural relationship between the seller and the post office in respect of carriage of goods sent by the seller under the V. P. P. system it became an agent of the seller for the recovery of the price and if it failed to recover the price and delivered the goods it was liable in damages to the sellers. Under the V. P. system the seller retained control over the goods right up to the goods were delivered to the buyer against payment of price and therefore the contract would fall under sec. 25 of the Sale of Goods Act. The property in the goods passed at the place where the price which included profits was paid. It was also held that in the case of goods sent by Railway, as in the case of goods sent by VPP the railway receipts in favour of self could not be delivered to the buyer till the money was paid and although the goods had been handed over to a common carrier the appropriation to the contract as in the case of goods sent by V. P. P. was only conditional and the performance was completed only when the monies were paid and the railway receipts delivered. These contracts also must be taken to have been performed and the price paid to the bank as agent of the seller at the place of payment and delivery of railway receipts. This decision was followed in Income Tax Commissioner Vs. Bhopal Textiles Ltd. (3 ). In that case goods were all sent F. O. R. Bhopal, and the railway freight and other charges were to be borne by the buyers to whom the railway receipts made out in the name of the consignees were sent by the Company through the Imperial Bank at Bhopal. The Bhopal Branch sent the railway Receipts to branches of the Bank at Agra, Allahabad and Delhi, which collected the amounts due from the buyers, and, transmitted them to the Imperial Bank, Bhopal to the credit of the Company. It was held that the money was received in British India. It was observed? that "a railway receipt is a document of title to goods, and, for all purposes, represents the goods. When the railway receipt is handed over to the consignee on payment, the property in the goods is transferred". I accordingly hold that the learned Civil Judge rightly held that the Jodhpur court has jurisdiction to try the suit. I, therefore, dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. . ;