1934 (3) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods and that he is now en-titled to the refund of the Rs. 50 advanced by him. The other contention raised by the plaintiff need not be referred to for purposes of this Revision Petition. The defendant denied having received any intimation from the plaintiff before they sent the goods that the goods were not to be sent by V.P.P. The defendant also contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the cause of action arose at Madras and not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, namely, the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvarur. With reference to those contentions two important points arose for determination in the lower Court : (1) Whether the plaintiff was right in refusing to take delivery of the goods, the rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tly is that the contract was entered into at Madras. It is argued that this conclusion of the learned District Munsif is wrong because the offer to send the goods is accepted by Ex. 2 at Vijayapuram within the jurisdiction of the Tiruvarur Court. In Kamisetti Subbiah v. Katha Venkatawamy (1904) 27 Mad. 355 it is stated: Under the Contract Act, where the proposal and acceptance are made by letters, the contract Is made at the time when and at the place where the letter of acceptance is posted. 4. Exhibit 2 was posted at Vijayapuram. It would follow from this that the contract was made in Vijayapuram. Another -circumstance having a bearing on the question of jurisdiction is also referred to by the learned District Munsif in this p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....would have concluded that the performance of the contract was intended to be within the jurisdiction of the Tiruvarur Court but for the fact that the goods were sent per V.P.P. Having regard to the decision just quoted I must hold that the contract was intended to be performed at the place of business which is within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvarur. It follows from the above considerations that in the present case the contract was completed at the place of his business which is within the jurisdiction of the Tiruvarur Court and the parties intended that the performance was to be there. Under Section 20, Civil P.C. ...every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Judge held that the performance of the contract was intended to take place at Surat within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Surat where the suit was filed. In support of the conclusion that the cause of action arose at Surat be also relied on another circumstance, namely, that owing to the breach of contract the amount which the plaintiff was seeking to recover became a debt received by defendant 1 in that case. Then he points out that Section 49. Contract Act, deals with the place of performance, and the principle laid down there is that where no place is fixed for the performance of the promise, it is the duty of the debtor to apply to the creditor to appoint a reasonable place for the performance....