JUDGMENT
J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. The plaintiff has directed this civil revision against the order dated 23-10-1979 of the District Judge, Patiala, ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in a proper court, by holding that due to mutual agreement between the parties, the courts at Patiala has no jurisdiction.
2. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff-firm consigned 730 containers of some medicines with defendant No. 1’s Branch Office at Patiala, to be carried from Patiala to Agartala, vide G.R. No. PTI 3210 dated 31-7-1972. The goods were insured with defendant No. 1 for Rs. 20, 878/-. Defendant No. 1 transhipped the goods to Agartala through defendant No. 2. The delivery of the goods was not taken by the consignee at Agartala. The plaintiff then rebooked these goods from Agartala to Patiala through defendant No. 2. The goods were found damaged when the plaintiff took its delivery at Patiala. The plaintiff thus claimed Rs. 19, 549.40 as damages of the goods. The suit was resisted by both the defendants on various grounds including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the civil courts at Patiala on the basis of mutual agreement. It was also alleged that the goods got damaged due to the conduct of the plaintiff in not taking its delivery promptly. The trial court framed various issues on the merits of the case as well as on the matter of jurisdiction. It dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on merits besides holding that the civil court at Patiala had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the written agreement between the parties. The appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala, on the point of jurisdiction only and the judgment and decree of the trial court was modified to the extent that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for its presentation in a proper court. The order of the trial court on merits was also set aside inevitably on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of both the lower courts on the ground that the import of the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Musa Ji Luklnan Ji v. Durga Dass AIR 1946 Lahore 97 and that of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gamon India Ltd. , was misunderstood. He further maintained that the parties by agreement can oust the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of one or more courts but they cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court where no cause of action has arisen. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings of the lower courts contending that the principal office of one of the defendants being located at Calcutta, the parties could agree to confer the jurisdiction of trying any dispute by the civil courts at Calcutta alone.
4. Admittedly, in the present case, it cannot be said with certainty as to where the goods actually got damaged. According to the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) the ordinary jurisdiction to try the suit lay with the court within the local limits of which the defendant or each of the defendants resided or carried on business at the time of the commencement of the suit, or where the cause of action had wholly or partly arisen. The Explanation appended to this section further makes it clear that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or at such place where it has also a subordinate office in respect of the cause of action. Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company having its registered office at Shillong, while defendant No. 2 is either a company or a partnership concern having its head office at Calcutta. It is the admitted case of both the defendants that they were having their sub-offices at Patiala also. Clause 18 of the consignment note, Exh. PW 2/1 dated 31-7-1972, relating to the consignment of goods to defendant No. 1 runs as under:
The court in Secunderabad city alone shall have the jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport.
Similarly, Clause 18 of the consignment note, Exh. PW 2/2 dated 20-4-1973, regarding the rebooking of goods from Agartala to Patiala with Assam-Bengal Carriers, defendant No. 2, reads as under:
The court in Calcutta city alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport.
5. Thus, it transpires that the parties had contracted to oust the ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts at Patiala and Agartala, where the cause of action had arisen because it cannot be said with certainty whether the goods were damaged on the way to Agartala or on the way to Patiala from Agartala. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that he had not accepted the terms of the contract in this regard, as contained in clause of the consignment note Exh. PW 2/2, because the very moment he had taken delivery of the goods at Patiala, vide this consignment note, he had impliedly accepted these terms, even though he had not signed this consignment note. As already discussed, the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts to try this suit would have been either at Patiala or Agartala, or at Calcutta or Shillong where a part of the cause of action has arisen, or where the defendants were having their head offices and working for gains. Under these circumstances, the agreement embodied in Clause 18 of the consignment note Exh. PW 2/1, conferring the jurisdiction on civil courts at Secunderabad to try the suit, is bad and illegal. But the agreement embodied in Clause 18 of the consignment note Exh. PW 2/2, conferring the jurisdiction on the civil courts at Calcutta city alone to try the suit would be perfectly legal as the ordinary jurisdiction to try the suit also lay with the civil courts at Calcutta because defendant No. 2 has its head office in that city.
6. No doubt, both the lower courts had not dealt with the relevant provisions of Section 20 of the Code while disposing of the matter but, all the same, in view of the above referred findings it will not make any difference. In Hakam Singh’s case , while interpreting the scope of Section 20 of the Code, it was held that parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on court not possessed under the Code, but agreement that one of the courts having such jurisdiction alone shall try dispute, is not contrary to public policy and does not contravene the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act. It was further held that the word ‘corporation’ in Explanation includes not only a statutory corporation but also a company registered under the Companies Act. Similarly, the Lahore High Court in Musa Ji Lukman Ji’s case AIR 1946 Lahore 97, held that an agreement between the parties that suit relating to disputes arising between them should be instituted in one court only out of two courts having jurisdiction is not void under Section 28 of Contract Act as it is not opposed to public policy.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in the revisions petition on the point of jurisdiction, it is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.