Pritam Dass Goyal vs Parkash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd., and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court dated February 27, 1976 whereby plaint of the plaintiff-petitioner, has been returned on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

The petitioner filed the suit out of which the present revision has arisen, for the recovery of Rs. 2,700/- against the defendants-respondent on account of the price of the goods booked through respondent No. 2 and the same having been lost in transit. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection was taken that the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit inasmuch as the parties themselves had contracted that, "The Court in Bangalore City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and mattars arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport." Consequently, a preliminary issue, to the following effect, was framed by the trial Court :

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ?

The parties produced their respective evidence and the trial Court came to the conclusion, after going through the same, that, it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned to the petitioner, for presentation to the proper court. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that even if it be assumed that the Bangalore Court had also the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of section 20 of the CPC read with the Explanation appended thereto, there was no valid contract between the parties ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana. According to the learned counsel it is not disputed that the cause of action did arise at Ludhiana as the goods were consigned with respondent No. 2 at Ludhiana and thus, in the absence of any valid contract between the parties, the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana was not ousted. In support of this contention, he relied upon Patel Bros. Vs. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd., . He also contended that in view of the balance of convenience and other circumstances and also the fact that the Court at Ludhiana also had the jurisdiction to try the suit, the plaint should not have been returned. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the black Sea Steap Shop U. L. Lastochkina Odessa, The Black Sea Steamship U.L. Lastochkina Odessa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and Another Vs. The Union of India,

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that, the petitioner himself produced two way bills, Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4 which also bore the endorsements made on behalf of the petitioner. There being specific terms printed on their reverse the petitioner was bound by the same and thus, in view of the terms, only the Court at Bangalore had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Reference was also made to Hakam Sing Vs. Gammon (India) Ltd., , and to two unreported judgments, one of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the other of the Mysore High Court.

I have heard the parties at a great length. The only question to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner agreed to the ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana, as contained in Exhibit P 3. and P. 4, or not ?

6 On the reverse of Exhibits P.3 and P.4 there is a condition, No. 17, which is to the following effect,-

The Court in Bangalore City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport.

It is not disputed that, Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4, are the way bills, which were issued by the respondent at the time when the goods were consigned through it by the petitioner. In other words, the goods were accepted by the respondent on the terms and conditions, as given on the reverse of the waybills, Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4, which were never contested by the petitioner. Thus, there being a specific condition that the Court in Bangalore City alone shall have the jurisdiction, and in view of the agreement between the parties, which is a valid one, the Court only at Bangalore City, had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As observed earlier it is not disputed that the Court at Bangalore City has the jurisdiction to try the suit.

The decision of the Madras High Court in M/s Patel Brothers case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly distinguishable. Therein, wide bill, Exhibit P.1, it was inter alia provided, that the transaction was "subject to Bombay Jurisdiction" but it did not exclude the jurisdiction of any other Court. Therefore it was observed that the "ouster of jurisdiction of a Court to which a person is entitled to resort to under the CPC or any other statute, cannot be a matter of assumption or presumption, but one to be proved by express words contained in the contract or at least by necessary or inevitable implication, It could not be said that the test was satisfied in this case."

As regards the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision it U.L. Lasto-chkina Udessa''s case (supra), it has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the question involved was; where once the parties are amendable to jurisdiction of a Court, it is upon to the Court in a particular country, though the parties have agreed to have their actions adjudicated upon in a different country, to entertain the cause and adjudicate upon it, if it considers that the ends of justice will be better served by a trial in its country? While deciding that question, it was observed that such a consideration was essential in the interests of international trade and commerce for the better relations between the countries and the peoples of the world. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner agreed to the terms and conditions given on the reverse of way bills, Exhibits P 3 and P.4. on the basis of which the suit was filed, the petitioner is bound by those terms since it is specifically provided therein that the Court in Bangalore City alone shall have the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana is thereby ousted by the parties themselves.

In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.