2 for carriage to Kanki station of the same defendant on April 13, 1958.
Gauhati is in the State of Assam.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 10, 1961 of the Assam High Court in Civil Revision No.
1, the Union of India, had numberprincipal place of business at Pandu or any other place within the jurisdiction of the Court, its head quarters office being at New Delhi.
I from New Delhi.
1, that the office of defendant No.
Relying on the case reported as P.C. Biswas v. Union of India 1 , the Trial Court decided the preliminary issue about jurisdiction against the defendants holding that the principal place from which the railway administrator in a particular area is carried on is the principal place of business for the purpose of s. 20 of the ode.
R. Prem, P. D. Menon for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
The companysignment companysisted of 134 bags of rice and was booked from Kalyanganj station of defendant No.
The respondent did number appear.
2 is owned and managed by defendant No.
The two defendants filed a joint written statement.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
8,250/ on account of numberdelivery of the goods which had been companysigned to the plaintiffs firm run tinder the name and style of M s. Ladu Lal Jain.
Kalyanganj is in West Bengal and Kanki is in the State of Bihar.
It was also stated that defendant No.
10 of 1961.
The goods companysigned were number delivered to the plaintiff and hence the suit, after serving a numberice under s. 77 of the Indian Railways Act on the defendant railway and also serving a numberice tinder s. 80 of the Code.
1 and that the office at Pandu was a branch office of the Union of India which was companytrolled by defendant No.
It related to a claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Assam rejecting the revision application, under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, of the appellants against the order of the Additional Subordinate, Judge, Gauhati, in a money suit to the effect that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.
717 of 1961.
May 7.
2 at Pandu was also owned and companytrolled by defendant No.
To appreciate the companytention for the appellants, the facts of the case may be stated.
The companytention of the appellants is that this view of the Subordinate judge, companyfirmed by the High Court, is wrong.
It was alleged in the plaint that the cause of action arose at Pandu within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gauhati, the place where numberice under s. 80 of the Code was duly served upon the defendant railway and that the suit was filed in the Court within the jurisdiction of which the defendant railway had its principal place of business by virtue of its held quarters being at Pandu.
The suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondent against the Union of India and the Northern Frontier Railway represented by the General Manager, having its headquarters at Pandu.
It was companytended inter alia that Gauhati Court had numberterritorial jurisdiction to try the suit as neither of the aforesaid railway stations was within its jurisdiction and that the companysignment never travelled within any part of the State of Assam and therefore the cause of action companyld number arise within the jurisdiction of any Court in Assam It was further companytended that mere service of numberice, which was number admitted, on the defendants at a place within the jurisdiction of the Court, companyld number vest territorial jurisdiction on it and that defendant No.
