Judgment :- GOVARDHAN J. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is to be tried. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : The defendant is a common carrier. As per invoice No. 80-81/2624, dated September 15, 1980, issued by The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Limited, Nagda, the first plaintiff purchased from them goods worth Rs. 1, 29, 655. The goods were entrusted with the defendant at Nagda under lorry receipt No. 702680 dated September 15, 1980, for transport to the first plaintiff at Coimbatore. The goods arrived at Coimbatore and the defendant offered to deliver the same to the first plaintiff on September 30, 1980. The outer condition of all the bales entrusted for transport were found wet and, therefore, open delivery was taken. The defendant gave a damage certificate on November 15, 1980, in token of having delivered the suit consignment in a wet and torn condition. The damage to the goods having been caused by the negligence of the defendant in handling the transport, the defendant is liable to pay the value of the same. The second plaintiff had insured the consignment and they got the loss assessed by a qualified surveyor. As per the surveyor's report, the damage less salvage was Rs. 50, 464.84. The second plaintiff who has insured the goods paid an amount of Rs. 1, 00, 929.68 to the first plaintiff towards the value of the damaged goods. The defendant is liable to reimburse the second plaintiff the said sum less salvage value realised. The first plaintiff had executed a letter of subrogation and assignment assigning and transferring all its rights and remedies including the right of suit against the defendant in favour of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to the suit claim.The defendant in their written statement has contended as follows : The description of the second plaintiff is not correct. The defendant is a common carrier and issues lorry receipts as documents of title with necessary endorsement on lorry receipts. The defendant has now become a public limited company under the Companies Act. They have issued a lorry receipt for carriage of goods from Nagda to Coimbatore. The defendant is a common carrier and issues lorry receipts as documents of title with necessary endorsement on lorry receipts. The defendant has now become a public limited company under the Companies Act. They have issued a lorry receipt for carriage of goods from Nagda to Coimbatore. In the lorry receipt, there a remark as follows : "The courts in Calicut city alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of claims and matters arising out of this consignment."* This remark is in a separate box delineated. The consignee copy is issued subject to the terms and conditions contained on the reverse of the lorry receipt and it is binding on the consignor. The claim should have been made only at Calicut, where head office of the defendant is situated. The suit filed on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, is not sustainable and the plaint has to be returned for presentation to proper court. The defendant has also disputed its liability in the written statement. On the above pleadings, a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is maintainable on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, was framed and enquired. The learned Subordinate judge has held that the suit is to be filed only at Calicut and the court at Coimbatore has no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation before proper court. Aggrieved over the said finding of the lower court, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is: Whether the appellants are not entitled to file the suit at Coimbatore on the ground that the Sub-Court at Coimbatore has no jurisdiction as per the lorry receipt issued ? Point : The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit consignment was entrusted for safe custody and carriage by Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Nagda, to be carried to Coimbatore and a lorry receipt was issued by the defendant's office at Nagda when the consignment was entrusted to them. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that when the consignment reached the destination, it was in a damaged condition. These facts are not disputed by the defendant who has its registered office at Calicut. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that when the consignment reached the destination, it was in a damaged condition. These facts are not disputed by the defendant who has its registered office at Calicut. The defendant has resisted the suit among other grounds by contending that the lorry receipt issued has a clause which specifically states that any dispute in respect of the consignment has to be enquired only in the courts at Calicut and not in any other place. The trial court has accepted the stand taken by the defendant and has returned the plaint for presentation in proper court.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that as per the Explanation to section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and also a subordinate office at another place, it is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situated but the court within whose jurisdiction it has the subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, and would rely upon the decision in Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company, wherein their Lordships have held that the words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation to section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code and the word "or", referred to above, which is disjunctive clearly suggests that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation, it is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situated but the court within whose jurisdiction it has subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office. In the present case, it is not disputed by the defendant that they have a branch office both at Nagda where the consignment was entrusted and at Coimbatore, where the consignment has been delivered. The lower court judgment itself refers that the lorry receipt has been entrusted to the defendant when the consignment was delivered, leading to the inference that there is a branch office of the defendant at Coimbatore even though their registered office is at Calicut. The lower court judgment itself refers that the lorry receipt has been entrusted to the defendant when the consignment was delivered, leading to the inference that there is a branch office of the defendant at Coimbatore even though their registered office is at Calicut. Since the defendant is carrying on business not only at Calicut where the registered office or the principal office is situated but also at Coimbatore where their business is being carried through their branch office. As per the decision in Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company, the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit at Coimbatore and the defendant cannot confer jurisdiction on the court at Calicut alone where its registered office is situated in order to compel the plaintiffs to file the suit at Calicut. In that view, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the trial court are not sustainable and the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit at Coimbatore and the point is answered accordingly.In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, is directed to take the suit on file and dispose of the same within three months from that date and report the matter to this court.