M. S. NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 10. 3. 1977 passed by the principal Civil Judge, Mangatore, O. K. , on issue No. 7ino. S. No. 37 of 1973 is challenged. ( 2 ) ISSUE No. 7 reads as follows: does the defendent prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the defendent while the respondent is the plaintiff. The Civil Judge has recorded his finding on issue No. 7 in the negative. ( 4 ) THE few facts are that the respondentplaintiff being a whole-sale dealer in arecanuts, entrusted to the petitioner-defendent-firm with 45 bags of arecanuts at its branch office at Mangalore for being transported to a destination in calcutta. The petitioner-defendent later on informed about the loss of the consignment alleging that the lorry in which the consignment was being transported got stuck in the middle of kalvakunta river in Andhra Pradesh and the consignment was lost. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in question for recovery of the value of the consignment and other expenses by way of damages. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-defendent put forth many contentions including the one on the basis of which issue No. 7 has been struck. That contention is that the way bill or the lorry receipt in question, produced as Exhibited P-1 (a copy of which is made available by the petitioner at page 28 of this revision petition) represents the terms of the contract between the defendant and the plaintiff and one of the terms of the contract is that the Courts in Indore City alone has jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport and therefore the Court of the Civil Judge at Mangalore had no jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the trial Court it was argued on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the terms in Ex. P-l are terms of agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff and therefore the aforecited terms is binding on the parties and as the head Office of the petitioner-defendant is situated in Indore City. , Indore Court also had jurisdiction under general law and therefore the indore City Courts had alone jurisdiction in view of the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff which is binding on them. , Indore Court also had jurisdiction under general law and therefore the indore City Courts had alone jurisdiction in view of the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff which is binding on them. It was argued on behalf of the respondent plaintiff that Exhibit p-1 is not a document of title or title deed, the terms on the obverse of it are not terms of agreement leading to a contract between the parties and therefore the Court at mangalore had jurisdiction as the cause of action had arisen at Mangalore and the branch office of the petitioner-defendant to which the consignment was delivered was also situtated at mangalore. The learned Civil Judge has held that the conditions in Exhibit P-1 are not terms of agreement between the parties and therefore section 28 of the CONTRACT ACT, 1872 would not be applicable to these conditions and as such there was no term binding on the parties to the effect that a claim arising out of the said consignment entrusted for transport was to be gone into by the Courts in Indore City alone. ( 7 ) SRI. K. Jagadeesha Alva, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that Exhibit P-l has been issued by the petitioner defendant to the plaintiff-respondent on receipt of goods in question and making it incumbent on the respondent-plaintiff that he is bound by the conditions provided on the obverse of it and therefore the entrustment of the goods which represents the contract between the petitioner-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff wherein the respondent-plaintiff has offered to consign the goods to the petitioner-defendant and the petitioner-defendant has accepted the offer as per the conditions which are in fact, terms of agreement printed on the obverse of Exhibit P-1, make it absolutely plain that the conditions printed on the obverse of Exhibit P-1 are terms of agreement on the basis of which the contract has been entered into between the petitionerdefendant and the respondent-plaintiff. ( 8 ) EXHIBIT P-l bears the words "not negotiable" printed boldly in large types. This shows that Exhibit P-1 could not be used as a document of title either by the consignee the respondent-plaintiff or any person to whom the respondent-plaintiff happens to hand over or transfer Exhibit P-1. This takes it out of the purview of Section 2 (4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. This shows that Exhibit P-1 could not be used as a document of title either by the consignee the respondent-plaintiff or any person to whom the respondent-plaintiff happens to hand over or transfer Exhibit P-1. This takes it out of the purview of Section 2 (4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The conditions printed on the obverse of exhibit P-l are 17 in number. There is no condition authorising or purporting to authorise, either by endoi sement of by delivery, the possessor of Exhibit P-1 to transfer or receive goods thereby represented. Therefore, the whole of the provision in Section 2 (4) of the sale of goods Act will not apply to Exhibit P-1. When that is so, it cannot be considered on par with the Railway Receipt specifically finds a place in Section 2 (4) of the Sale of Goods Act. Therefore what remains is only the receipt issued by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff evidencing receipt of the goods described therein by the petitioner- defendant from the respondent-plaintiff. This is the principle laid down in the decision in C. I. and B. Syndicate vs. V. Ramachandra (A. I. R. 1968 Mysore 133 ). ( 9 ) IN the decision in Visveswaraya Iron and steelltd. vs. Mehra Ferro Alloys (1977 (2) karnataka Law Journal 140) it has been held that the invoices which subsequently passed between the parties showed a note 'subject to amritsar jurisdiction', that note was not binding on the parties and a suit instituted in the court which ordinarily had jurisdiction was a suit validly instituted. ( 10 ) IN view of the facts narrated above and the position in law that is applicable to the said facts, it is to be held that no error can be found with the order in question and hence this revision petition has to fail. ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing, this revision petition is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .