JUDGMENT B.C. Chakrabarti, J 1. This revisional application at the instance of the defendant is directed against an order dated April 17, 1979 passed in Money Suit No. 660 or 1976 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. 2. The plaintiffs opposite parties instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 21,885/- - being the value of damages and/or loss to consignment delivered to the defendant for carriage. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : 3. Defendant is a common carrier carrying on business of transportation of goods on hire and has its office at 31, Phears Lane within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. Plaintiff No. 1 on diverse dates in September 1973 delivered goods to the defendant for carriage from Calcutta to Madras and Madurai, against consignment notes issued by the defendant. The plaintiff No. 1 was the owner of the said goods entrusted to the defendant for safe carriage. The goods were insured with an Insurance Company which has since merged into and vested in plaintiff No 2 part of the consignment did not reach the destination at all and part was delivered in damaged condition resulting from default, carelessness and negligence of the servants and agents of the defendant. Plaintiff No. 1 duly served notice of losses on the defendant under S.10 of the Carrier's Act. The defendant has failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiff any part of the loss suffered. Hence the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement to contest the claim wherein amongst other things it was pleaded that in view of the contract between the parties, Bombay Court alone has jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. Such a dispute being raised an issue as to whether the Calcutta court has jurisdiction to try the suit was framed. This issue was decided against the defendant by the order under challenge. 6. The mainstay of the defendant's plea was that in view of the stipulation printed on the consignment notes (marked Ext. A collectively) the contract of carriage must be deemed to have been made with the Administrative and head office at Bombay and in view of a further stipulation contained therein court would have jurisdiction in respect of all claims arising under the consignments. A collectively) the contract of carriage must be deemed to have been made with the Administrative and head office at Bombay and in view of a further stipulation contained therein court would have jurisdiction in respect of all claims arising under the consignments. The learned judge in the Trial Court overruled the defence contention upon a finding that though there was a contract of carriage, the plaintiffs' suit was really founded on torts arising from the default and neglect on the part of the defendant in respect of the goods entrusted to them for carriage and that they were not entitled to plead ouster of jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court only in view of the terms contained in the consignment notes. In short the finding was that since this was an action in tort independently of the contract there could be no question of limiting the jurisdiction to the Bombay court alone. The learned Judge also observed that since the suit had been filed nearly at the end of the period of limitation, the plaintiff's claim may be frustrated if the plaint be now returned for want of jurisdiction. The disputed issue on such findings was answered against the defendant. Hence the revisional application. 7. The controversy as to jurisdiction in the case arises in view of a particular condition printed on the reverse of the consignment notes which is worded as follows :- "The contract shall be deemed to have been entered into and made with the Administrative and Head Office of the company at Bombay. It is therefore expressly agreed that the court, in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claim, and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport". The consignment note makes it clear that the goods were received for transport from Calcutta for delivery at the destination Madras or Madurai as the case may be at owner’s risk subject to the terms and conditions of carriage printed on the reverse.” There is a further endorsement on the face of the Consignment Note that it was “subject to Bombay jurisdiction.” 8. There is no dispute that had there been no such clause as referred to above, the City Civil Court at Calcutta would certainly be competent to entertain the suit for recovery of damages. There is no dispute that had there been no such clause as referred to above, the City Civil Court at Calcutta would certainly be competent to entertain the suit for recovery of damages. Such a suit could also be brought at Bombay or at the places where the goods were deliverable. It is now settled law that an agreement between the parties that one out of several courts having concurrent jurisdiction, only would be competent to entertain a suit, neither contravenes S. 28 of the Contract Act nor is it opposed to public policy. Such being the position, the particular clause in the terms and conditions of the consignment poses the question whether in the given facts of the case the suit could be validly instituted and continued at Calcutta. 9. The learned Judge in the Trial Court has observed that whatever may be the terms of the contract, the suit was really an action in tort independently of the contract and that such a liability could be validly enforced by a suit at Calcutta. 10. There can be no dispute with the principle that a person liable under a contract may also be liable in tort. A bailee as a rule owes a duly of care under the contract of bailment and may be sued in tort irrespective of whether he is also under a contractual liability. There may be instances in which a person voluntarily binds himself by a contract to perform some duty which already lies upon him independently of any contract. The breach of such a contract is also a tort inasmuch as liability would equally have existed in such a case had there been no contract at all. It is now well established that where there is a contract between the owner and the carrier the owner may sue the carrier either on contract or in tort at his option. In the instant case, the plaintiff opposite party stated in the plaint that the defendant company is liable in tort to the plaintiff No.1 as a bailee as well as an insurer under the Carriers Act (vide para 7). It was therefore argued on behalf' of the plaintiff that he having elected to sue the defendant/petitioner in tort the terms and conditions embodied in the contract are of no avail in determining the forum of such a claim. It was therefore argued on behalf' of the plaintiff that he having elected to sue the defendant/petitioner in tort the terms and conditions embodied in the contract are of no avail in determining the forum of such a claim. We are however unable to accept such a contention. The question whether the claim in the suit rests on the contract or not depends upon a true construction of the plaint the substance of it being the decisive factor. In spite of what is stated in para 7, clear reference is made to the contract of carriage not merely as a matter of history but as the starting point of the defendant's liability. Therefore, it can not be said that the option to sue in tort was unequivocal. 11. That apart the terms of the contract have clearly two aspects-one relating to the contract of carriage and the other relating to the forum where a claim arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport could be lodged. If the present suit is not founded upon the contract, it certainly arises from the entrustment of the good for transport. The failure of the defendant to perform the duty of safe carriage in respect of the goods entrusted to them for the purpose give rise to the liability in tort. Such a contingency is also covered by the terms and conditions appearing in Ext. A. Therefore it follows that a claim be it under the contract or in tort, was agreed to be lodged only at Bombay. It is not open to the plaintiff to avoid that agreement by contending that the suit is not for enforcement of the contract liability under the consignment Notes. The matter might have been different if the contract was that Bombay courts alone would have jurisdiction in respect of claims and matters arising under the contract. But it went further to say that Bombay courts would have jurisdiction in respect to of matters arising from the entrustment of the goods for transport also. This part of the contract clearly indicates that the parties agreed that even in the case of a claim in tort, the forum would be the court in Bombay. But it went further to say that Bombay courts would have jurisdiction in respect to of matters arising from the entrustment of the goods for transport also. This part of the contract clearly indicates that the parties agreed that even in the case of a claim in tort, the forum would be the court in Bombay. That agreement cannot be avoided by pleading that the claim in the suit is founded on tort consequently we find that in view of the agreement between the parties regarding the forum, the court at Calcutta has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 12. The learned judge in the trial court seems to think that since the suit was filed at a time when the period of limitation was about to expire, the claim may be frustrated if it is held that the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction, Firstly such a consideration ought not to have weighed with the court when the parties had deliberately chosen a particular forum Secondly, we do not see how such a claim could be frustrated. If the plaint is returned under the circumstances as above, for presentation to the proper court, it would be open to the plaintiffs to claim exclusion of the time spent in the litigation here. 13. In the view of the matter we have taken, the Rule ought to succeed. The impugned order is therefore set aside. It is found that the City Civil Court, Calcutta has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The plaint be therefore returned to the filing advocate for presentation to the proper court. The Revisional application is thus disposed of. There will be no order for costs. Let the records be sent down forthwith. Rule made absolute. Plaint to be returned for presentation before proper court.