Jurisdiction clauses and curable plaint defects cannot defeat a suit where part of the cause of action arises locally.

Procedural defects in plaint signing and verification by an authorised manager, rather than a partner, were treated as curable irregularities that did not affect jurisdiction or cause failure of justice, so dismissal on that ground was unwarranted. A printed jurisdiction clause on the consignment note was ineffective because acceptance as a contractual term was not proved, and Cuttack had jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose there and the defendant carried on business through a branch there. On the merits, proof of damage, shortage and non-delivery entitled the plaintiff to refuse delivery without a shortage certificate and to recover the value of the goods, freight and interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected because it was not signed and verified by a partner of the firm but by the manager and power-of-attorney holder. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by the jurisdiction clause printed on the consignment note and was maintainable at Cuttack. (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a larger decree on account of non-delivery of the consignment and refusal to issue a shortage certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected because it was not signed and verified by a partner of the firm but by the manager and power-of-attorney holder.

Analysis: The defect, if any, in signature and verification was procedural and did not go to the merits or the court's jurisdiction. The plaint had been signed and verified by an authorised manager and there was no showing of prejudice or failure of justice. The objection was also not taken at the appropriate stages, and Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred reversal for such an irregularity.

Conclusion: The objection failed and the suit could not be dismissed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by the jurisdiction clause printed on the consignment note and was maintainable at Cuttack.

Analysis: The clause on the consignment note was not proved to have been accepted as a binding term of the contract. Independently, part of the cause of action arose at Cuttack, where the goods were to be delivered and the contesting defendant carried on business through its branch, so jurisdiction existed under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A private agreement could restrict forum only where the chosen court otherwise had jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Cuttack court had jurisdiction and the suit was maintainable there.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a larger decree on account of non-delivery of the consignment and refusal to issue a shortage certificate.

Analysis: The record showed damage to the packing cases and actual shortage in the consignment. The plaintiff was entitled to insist on a shortage certificate before taking delivery, and the demand for demurrage, wharfage and labour charges after refusal to issue such certificate was unjustified. Since the plaintiff had already paid freight and the goods were not delivered, the plaintiff was entitled at least to the value of the goods and the freight paid, with interest.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 793.90 with interest at 6% per annum from 11-6-1971 till realization.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the jurisdiction objection and procedural objection were rejected, and the plaintiff obtained enhanced monetary relief for the loss caused by non-delivery of the consignment.

---