Nathmal Ghasilal vs Phoolchand Ramnarain

P.R. Sharma, J.—The only question involved in this revision application is whether the Court of the Civil Judge II Class Morena has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The facts necessary for the decision are that a telegram was sent on 13-5-1959 by the plaintiff''s firm at Morena to the defendant firm at Rajnandgaon inquiring about the rate of ram-pulses The defendant by a telegram dated 14-5-1959 informed the petitioner that the rate was Rs. 43 8-0 per bag. The petitioner thereafter sent a letter on 16-5-1959 in which he placed an order for supply of one wagon load of pulses. This letter was received by the plaintiff on 18-5-1959. The agreement between the parties was that the R. R. for the goods will be received on payment of the price by the vendee at Morena.

The question to be decided is whether the cause of action did not even partly arise within the jurisdiction of the Court at Morena. The question of the price by the defendant in his telegram dated 14-5-1959 was not an offer to sell, but a mere invitiation to the plaintiff for an offer to buy.

In S. A. Bank. Travancore vs. Dhrit Ram (A. I. R. 1942 P. C. 6) on an inquiry from a party the Bank sent a quotation of rates of interest and forms to be filled by the party. The party filled in the forms and sent the money as deposit. The Bank accepted the money and sent back a receipt to the party The Bank''s letter with quotations was held not to be an offer, but only a quotation of business terms. The contract was held to be made by the offer of the party in the opening form being accepted by the Bank by issue of the deposit receipt.

In Col. D.I. Mac Pherson Vs. M.N. Appanna and Another, it was held that a mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor would sell contains no implied contract to sell at the price quoted to the person making the inquiry.

In Baroda Oil Cakes Traders Vs. Parshottam Narayandas Bagulia and Another, it was held that an offer in transmission from a particular place is no part of the cause of action. In the eye of law the offer is made only when it is received, and as soon as the acceptance of the offer is put in the course of communication the acceptance is complete as against the proposer.

Applying these principles to the present case it would follow that the offer to buy a certain quantity of pulses was received by the defendant firm at Rajnandgaon, its acceptance was also put in the course of communication at Rajnandgaon. The contract must, therefore, be held to have been made at Rajnandgaon.

In a suit of a contract the cause of action arises at any of the places (1) where the contract was made (2) where the contract was to be performed, or performance thereof was to be completed, and (3) wherein performance of the contract any money was expressly or impliedly payable. In a ''bilticut'' transaction payment of the price is payable against the railway receipt. The price for the goods was, therefore, payable at Morena in the present case. The courts at Morena as well as at Rajnandgaon, will, therefore, have jurisdiction to entertain a suit based on the contract between the parties to the present suit.

This revision application has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

In the course of the arguments it was brought to my notice that the defendant also has filed a suit in the Small Causes Court at Rajnandgaen for damages for an alleged breach of the same contract by the plaintiff in the present case. It is opon for either party to move this Court for a transfer of the suit to the Court at Morena, However, that fact can have no bearing on the question involved in the present revisiona application.