ASSOCIATED TRADERS AND ENGINEERS (P) LTD Vs. V.C.S. INDUSTRIES (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSOCIATED Traders and Engineers (P) Ltd., the petitioner in both these petitions, are carrying on business as carrier and transport operator. In respect of certain goods entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents in the two petitions for transport, the goods did not reach the destination and were lost en route. The respondents, therefore, filed actions against the petitioner and claimed the value of the goods entrusted for transport. One of the defences raised by the petitioner before the lower court was that as per the terms of the contract entered into between the parties all claims against the petitioner should be sued for only in the courts in Delhi city and that the said condition had also been incorporated as clause 17 in the G. R. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. After proceeding to consider the claims on merits, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the amounts claimed by the plaintiff in each of the two actions.

(2.) IT is to contend that the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in refusing to uphold the objection raised by the petitioner that no other court, except the court in Delhi city, had jurisdiction to entertain the actions, is wrong and unsustainable, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.

(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING my upholding the grievance of the revision petitioner in this behalf, no relief can be given in these revision petitions on account of the fact that both the suits have been tried fully and judgments have been rendered on merits against the revision petitioner. In cases of this kind, it is well known that where in an action, judgment has been rendered on merits, the judgment ought not to be interfered with by an appellate court merely on account of an objection taken by one of the parties regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, unless the aggrieved party is able to establish that there had been a failure of justice in any manner by the trial court having proceeded with the trial and rendering a judgment in the case on merits. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, the Supreme Court has laid down as follows -