Case: Amar Chand Inani Vs. Union Of India

2. The plaintiff is an advocate practising at the Ajmer bar. On the night between December 31, 1957 and January 1, 1958 the plaintiff was travelling by 2 Dn. Passenger train from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi. While the train was at Mohri Railway Station, the Janatha Express train coming from Delhi collided with it and a as result the plaintiff sustained serious injuries on his head and in the spine. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages under several heads. The trial Court found that the claim for damages was well founded to the extent of Rupees 33,503.00, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The High Court, on appeal by the plaintiff, confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the appeal.

Reasoning: We do not think it necessary to decide the question whether the order passed by the Panipat Court returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court would operate as res judicata and preclude the appellant from contending in this appeal that the Karnal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, for the reason that the appellant never raised contention before the trial Court that Karnal Court was the proper Court for instituting the suit on the ground that Mohri Railway Station was within its jurisdiction. On the other hand, by invoking Section 14 of the Act, he impliedly asserted that the Karnal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint because that section proceeds on the basis that the Court in which the proceeding was pending was unable to entertain the proceeding from defect of jurisdiction or cause of a like nature. To put it differently, the appellant had no case either in the trial Court, or in the High Court in the appeal from the decree, that Karnal Court was the proper Court for filing the suit. No doubt, he invoked the provision of Section 4 of the Act and sought to bring the case within its purview both in the trial Court and in the High Court, but that was on the basis that even if the Karnal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 4. In these circumstances, we do not think that the appellant should be permitted to urge before this Court that the Karnal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the reason the Mohri Railway Station was within its jurisdiction and show that the suit as filed on March 2, 1959, was filed in the proper Court for the purpose of the Section 4 of the Act10. As the suit was barred by limitation, we do not think it necessary to consider the question whether the appellant is entitled to get any further amount by way of damages.