Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat
Facts:
The plaintiff had purchased certain articles which were booked in 29 bales. Material was booked with New Moga Transport Co., the present appellant (defendant No.1) for transportation to Barnala.Plaintiff No.2 claimed that he had suffered loss and lodged a claim against the present appellant i.e. defendant No.1. In the suit a specific plea inter alia was taken by the present appellant that the Court at Barnala had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. With reference to the consignment note, it was submitted that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the consignment note it was indicated that the Court having jurisdiction was the one situated at Udaipur. As noted above, the trial Court did not accept the plea that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction. But in appeal, the first Appellate Court upset the verdict of the trial Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court restored the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief and Court at Barnala had jurisdiction.
Issue:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the verdict of the First Appellate court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court
Contentions raised by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the High Court has clearly over-looked the fact that the parties by an agreement have fixed a particular Court to be the Court that has the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also contended thatthere is clear exclusion of the Courts other than the chosen one and, therefore, the suit could not have been entertained at any other place. Unfortunately, the High Court did not appreciate the factual position in its proper perspective holding that the Court at Barnala would have got jurisdiction in the ordinary course.
Contentions raised by the Respondent:
The respondent submitted that the consignment note was not clear and what was stated in the consignment note was "the Court at Head Office city shall only be the jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment at the goods entrusted for transport". Though the parties could by agreement restrict the jurisdiction to a Court which along with other Courts had jurisdiction, yet in view of the vague indication of the court relating to jurisdiction the High Court has rightly interfered.
Judgement:
The court under section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code held that the Plaintiff has a choice of forum and can file a suit in a place where the cause of action arises and therefore, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the order of First Appellate Court.
