AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Foster, J.—This is an application u/s 25 of the Small Cause Court Act and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main ground on which the applications have been pressed is that of jurisdiction.
The applicant Company received a consignment of cotton from the opposte party, the firm Daulat Ram, at Jageranath Ghat Calcutta booked to Simaria ghat for Darbhanga. It should he mentioned that Simaria ghat is a steamer ghat in Monghyr District, and from there to Darbhanga the cotton would have to proceed by railway. On the forwarding note there is an instruction signed by the consignor, directing the railway to sign the railway forwarding note and the necessary risk note on his behalf at Simaria ghat through their steamer agent, and recognising that if the goods be refused by the railway they shall remain at the steamer terminus at the shippers risk and exppense. It appears that the cotton arrived at Darbhanga deficient in weight and it has been found that the deficiency was caused during the transit on the river when in the applicants'' custody. The case that was brought by the consignee, the firm Daulat Ram, was tried by the Small Cause Court Judge at Darbhanga and decreed. The applicants'' contention is that their contract and their contractual responsibilities extended only between Jagernath Ghat and Simaria ghat and that in no capacity and in no part of their dealing with the plaintiff firm Daulat Ram had they anything to do with Darbhanga. The applicants urge that by implication the terms of Section 99 of the CPC give them the right to have the decree reversed. Against this the opposite party has a very strong reply. He refers to Section 21 of the CPC and also to several rulings which practically were to the same effect as the section. In addition to this he points out that the applicants have never asserted in their petition that they have suffered any prejudice by reason of the trial of the suit at Darbhanga. The applicants urge that there is no need of any proof of prejudice when it is admitted that they have no office at Darbhanga and no connection at all with the place. But this argument would only have any pertinence if the applicants had themselves raised in their pleading the question of prejudice. Prejudice must be pleaded first and then will come the question whether it has been proved. In my opinion this contention of the applicants must fail for the grounds put forward by the opposite party.
Other points have been urged which have reference only to matter of evidence admitted on the record.
The applications are rejected with costs. Hearing fee on the scale of second appeal in one charge.