Union of India (UOI) vs Kedar Prasad

U.N. Sinha, J.—This application has been filed u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the defendant. It is directed against an order passed by the trial court, in Small Cause Court Suit No. 39/41 of 1967, dated the 31st August. 1968, holding that the court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

The relevant facts are as follows: The plaintiff-opposite party has filed the suit in question in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Begusarai, claiming compensation against the defendant for loss of goods by non-delivery to the plaintiff. It is alleged that certain goods had been booked from Varanasi for Monghyr. The plaintiff is said to have given notice u/s 80 of the CPC to the defendant from Begusarai. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Court at Begusarai to try the suit and the learned Judge has held that as giving of notice u/s 80 of the CPC forms part of the cause of action, the suit is maintainable at Begusarai. The learned Judge has followed a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India, . The learned Judge has stated that this decision has been followed by the Assam High Court in the case of Pratap Chandra Biswas v. Union of India AIR 1956 Ass 85. The learned Judge deciding Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India, stated that he was bound to follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case, Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Governor General in Council, ILR (1950) 2 Cal 551 and the case, Dominion of India v. Jagdish Prasad Pannalal 84 CLJ 175 :AIR 1949 Cal 622).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Dunlop Rubber Co.''s case, ILR (1950) 2 Cal 551 has been overruled by Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case, Niranjan Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (UOI), . Learned counsel has further argued that the decision of the Dominion of India''s case, 84 Cal LJ 175 = (AIR 1949 Cal 622) has been held to have been wrongly decided, in the case, Bansi and Others Vs. Governor-General of India in Council, . It may be mentioned that the decision reported in Bansi and Others Vs. Governor-General of India in Council, has been mentioned in Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India, . From what has been stated above, it appears that the view taken in Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India, must give way to the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Niranjan Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (UOI), . So far as the Assam High Court is concerned, the case AIR 1956 Assam 85 purported to follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Raj Kumar Shaw Vs. Dominion of India, . Therefore, the view expressed by the Division Bench in Niranjan Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (UOI), should be followed in the instant case. It must, accordingly, be held that the court at Begusarai trying the suit has no jurisdiction to try it. The plaint must, therefore, be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The civil revision is, therefore, allowed, but there will be no order for costs.