Patna High Court
Shree Bihariji Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The General ... on 6 January, 1964
Equivalent citations: AIR1965PAT53
JUDGMENT U.N. Sinha, J.
1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,707/- from the defendant.
2. The plaintiff's allegations In the plaint were as follows: On or about the 12th of September, 1956, 260 bags of wheat were entrusted to the Railway station staff at Kudra, along with a forwarding note, for despatch to the plaintiff, by the plaintiff's agent at Kurda. The goods were stocked in the station godown at Kudra, pending issue of railway receipt. On the 13th of September, 1956, the Railway Staff at Kudra gave out that 39 bags of wheat were stolen from the godown. A note was Issued to that effect, and it was also mentioned therein that some quantities of wheat had been pilfered from five bags. Thereafter, the plaintiff's agent supplied 44 bags of wheat to the Railway Staff, and in due course, a railway receipt bearing No. 823279 was issued on the 13th of September, 1956. In due course, this wheat was despatched. On the 7th of August, 1956, 230 bags of linseed had also been entrusted to the station staff at Kudra, along with a forwarding note. This had also been kept, in the railway godown. It was subsequently found that some of the contents of 4 bags of linseed were pilfered. A short certificate for the missing quantity was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred claim for the loss sustained, by two letters dated the 29th of September, 1956, addressed to the Chief Commercial Superintendent. In due course, this suit was filed, claiming Rs. 1,588/-for the loss with respect to the wheat, and Rs. 119/-for the loss with respect to the linseed.
3. A written statement was filed by the defendant, on the 2nd of May, 1958, controverting the allegations of the plaintiff, and by an amendment dated the 18th March, 1960, paragraph 2A was inserted to the following effect, namely:-"That this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit". On the 21st of March, 1960, the plaintiff filed a petition praying that the question of jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue in the suit. Thus, a preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court where this suit was instituted, namely, the court of the 1st Munsif at Patna, was agitated,
4. The learned Munsif held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In his opinion, a court in the district of Shahabad only had jurisdiction to try the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge had concurred and has held that the Court in which this suit had been instituted had no jurisdiction to try it Thus, the plaintiff has come up to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was a contract of carriage of goods between the plaintiff and the defendant, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to file this suit in the Court of the First Munsif at Patna, because the contract was to be performed within the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. This argument is based on the fact that the goods despatched were to be delivered to the plaintiff at Patna Ghat, within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was instituted. Reference is made by learned counsel to Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act, and reliance is placed on the case of Governor-General of India in-Council v. Jubilee Mills Ltd., reported in AIR 1953 Bom 46. According to learned counsel, the Railway administration was a bailee under the contract of carriage, and, therefore, the plaintiff was at liberty to choose its forum for the institution of this suit.
Learned counsel for the opposite party, has, on the other hand, contended that it has rightly been held that the Court at Patna had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and the suit should have been filed in an appropriate Court in the district of Shahabad. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the courts below have rightly held that the learned Munsif, in whose Court this suit had been instituted, had no jurisdiction to try it. The question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Section 72 of the Railways Act, as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in the case mentioned above, does not really arise at this stage. Whether 39 bags of wheat were stolen and some quantities were pilfered from five more bags, after the goods were "delivered to the administration" within the meaning of Section 72 of the Railways Act, will fall for determination in the suit itself, if the liability is denied. But the question that has to be considered at this stage is, whether the cause of action, or any part thereof, had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit had been filed.
The answer, in my opinion, must be in the negative. The proposition may be tested in the following way. If on the 13th of September, 1956, the plaintiff had booked the goods, that were then lying in the railway godown at Kudra, to some place not within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the present suit was filed, and the goods were lost in transit, could the plaintiff, then, sue the Railway administration for the loss, instituting the suit in a Court within whose jurisdiction delivery was to be given under the railway receipt, and, institute another suit at Patna, for the wheat lost and stolen at Kudra between the 12th and 13th September, 1956, only because on the 12th September it had in mind that it would send the wheat to Patna Ghat? The answer must be that a suit in a Court, within whose jurisdiction Patna Ghat lies, could not have been instituted, only because the plaintiff had in mind on the 12th of September, 1956, that the goods entrusted to the Railway station staff at Kudra should be despatched later on to Patna Ghat.
The proposition may also be tested by a simpler illustration. Supposing on the 13th of September, 1956, the plaintiff chose to take away the remaining goods then lying at Kudra Railway station and despatched the same by some other means, with which the Railway was not concerned, could the plaintiff sue the Railway for the loss sustained by the plaintiff, while the goods were in the custody of the Railway Staff at Kurda between the 12th and the 13th September, 1958, instituting the suit at Patna, only because on the 12th of September it was desirous of sending its goods to Patna Ghat? The answer must, again, be in the negative. In my opinion, the cause of action in the instant case arose in the district of Shahabad, and no part of the cause of action, with respect to the stolen bags and the bags from which certain quantities were pilfered, arose within the Jurisdiction of the Munsif 1st Court at Patna. The decision reported in AIR 1953 Bom 46 was not a decision on the forum for the suit. It was a decision on the liability under Section 72 of the Railways Act. Therefore, neither Section 72, nor the decision which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner can be of any avail for the decision of the question that has arisen at this stage.
6. The application must be held to be without any merit, and it is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 64/-.
S.N.P. Singh, J.
7. I agree.