D.G. Karnik, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision applicant.
2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 7th September, 2004 passed by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon below Exhibit-1 in Special Civil Suit No. 373 of 1997.
3. The necessary facts are stated below :
The revision applicant is a common carrier. The respondent entrusted a consignment to the revision applicant for transportation from Burhanpur to Bhusawal. During the course of transportation from Burhanpur to Bhusawal, the goods were damaged. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 373 of 1997 against the revision applicant for damages in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalgaon within whose jurisdiction Bhusawal situate. The said suit was assigned to the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon by the learned District Judge, for trial. The revision applicant filed the written statement and disputed its liability. The revision applicant also contended that the Court at Jalgaon had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, on the ground that the consignment receipt, issued by the revision applicant contained a note at the bottom to the effect 'subject to Bombay jurisdiction only.' A preliminary issue as to jurisdiction was framed by order dated 7th September, 2004. The learned Judge held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and rejected the plea of the revision applicant that only the Courts at Bombay had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. That order is impugned in this revision application.
4. Learned Counsel for the revision applicant submits that the printed note below the consignment receipt constituted a specific agreement between the parties that only the Courts at Bombay would have jurisdiction to entertain and try suit between the parties arising out of the said consignment. He submits that since the revision applicant has an office in Bombay, only the Courts in Bombay would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. He refers to and relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. : [1971]3SCR314 . It is settled position in law that the parties cannot by an agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court which has none. If, however, there are two or more Courts, which would have jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit, it would be open to the parties to agree that any one of the two or more Courts would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit to the exclusion of others. Admittedly, the goods were being transmitted from Burhanpur to Bhusawal. During transit, the goods did not pass through Bombay at all. In the circumstances, it cannot be disputed that no part of cause of action arose at Bombay. Therefore, the Courts at Bombay would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit arising out of damage to the goods transported under the consignment receipt.
5. Shri Gangapurwala, learned Counsel for the revision applicant, however, submits that since the revision applicant had an office in Bombay, it would be deemed to carry out the business at Bombay, and therefore, under Clause (b) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure a suit could be filed against it at Bombay and it was therefore open for the parties to agree that all suits would be filed only in the Courts at Bombay. Firstly, the revision applicant (original defendant) is only a business concern and not a Corporation. Therefore, Explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the present case which was the case in the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (supra). Secondly, it is stated in the consignment receipt that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction indicating that if the revision applicant were to file a suit, it would also have been filed only in the Courts at Bombay. Such a suit could not have been filed by the revision applicant in Bombay because the respondent was not carrying on business at Bombay and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Courts in Bombay. Therefore the Courts at Bombay could not be said to have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit in respect of the disputes arising out of the suit consignment. If the Bombay Courts had no jurisdiction, the clause in the consignment receipt that the suits should be filed only at Bombay would obviously not confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Bombay.
6. I, therefore, see no error in the view taken by the Lower Court that the Courts at Bombay had no jurisdiction and it had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the respondent. Hence, civil revision application is dismissed summarily.