Honble R.R. YADAV, J. – Instant first appeal has been filed by the defendant -appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra in Civil Original Suit No. 06 of 1976 decreeing the suit for recovery of damages filed by plaintiff- respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 14,200/- with interest pendente lite till recovery. (2) The aforesaid suit for recovery of damages was filed by plaintiff- respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 delivered 14 truck receipts to appellant No. 3 on 15.7.1974 with a direction that documents should be delivered against the payment. It was alleged that the collection charges should be recovered from the drawee and bills could be detained for 30 days. (3) These truck receipts were dated 9.7.1974. The plaintiff- respondent under these truck receipts sent `bales of clothes to the various business organisations at Kanpur. Along with these truck receipts, the bills in the names of the various business organisations were also delivered to defendant- appellant No. 3 for collection of charges. Out of these 14 truck receipts, four of such receipts were not delivered to the respective parties, therefore, the plaintiff -respondent enquired from the office of defendant- appellant No. 3 and upon enquiry, plaintiff-respondent No.1 received a letter from Punjab National Bank on 22.12.1974 that these four bills had not been received in the office of Punjab National Bank, General Ganj, Kanpur. Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondent submitted duplicate truck receipts with indemnity bond in the office of defendant-appellant No. 3, which were sent to the office of defendant-appellant No.2, so that, the same may be delivered to the respective parties. When these four duplicate receipts were received in the office of defendant -appellant No.2, they found that the consignment of these truck receipts had already been delivered to the holders of the truck receipts on the basis of original truck receipts on 27.7.1974 .As the parties could not receive the consignments, the amount so paid by them which comes to Rs. 11,699,29 was returned to them and the plaintiff- respondent had to pay commission to the tune of Rs. 2,490/- (4) The aforesaid negligence and malafide misconduct of defendant-appellant necessitated the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to file the present Civil Suit for reco- very of Rs, 14,200/- from them . 11,699,29 was returned to them and the plaintiff- respondent had to pay commission to the tune of Rs. 2,490/- (4) The aforesaid negligence and malafide misconduct of defendant-appellant necessitated the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to file the present Civil Suit for reco- very of Rs, 14,200/- from them . (5) Defendant-appellant No.3 took a plea before the learned trial court that though he had received the bills along with truck receipts in order to collect the amount from the respective parties and the same were sent to defendant -appellant No. 2 under registered cover along with other documents which was delivered in the office of appellant No. 2 on 27.7.1974. According to the plea taken by defendant-appellant No.3, somebody committed the theft of these four truck receipts and after committing forgery by making a false endorsement in favour of fictitious person `Naveen Chand obtained the consigments. Defendant- appellant No. 3 for the first time came to know through the letter dated 26.2 1975 received from Punjab National Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur that the consignments had been delivered on the basis of fictitious and forged endorsement at Kanpur. It is also alleged that prior to the aforesaid letter, appellant No. 3 also received a letter from Punjab National Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur dated 19.12.1974 in which it was stated that these four truck receipts were not available in the office of appellant No.2. On 4.1.1975, defen- dant -appellant No.3 sent duplicate truck receipts along with duplicate bills to appellant No. 2 and the same was delivered to the respective parties at Generalganj, Kanpur against payments. It is also alleged that as the defendant-appellant No. 3 was acting according to the agreement, to collect the bills as envisaged from Ex. A/2/1 to A/2/8, which was duly complied with, therefore, the Bank is not liable to pay the amount in question. (6) It is also alleged in the written statement by the appellants that when the truck receipts and bills were handedover to appellant No. 3 under Ex. A/2/1 to A/2/8, it was agreed upon between them that appellant No.3 could appoint any Agent for collection of the bills and the same can be sent by post. It was further alleged to have been agreed upon between the parties as per Condition No. 2 that neither appellant No. 3 nor its Agent, would be responsible for any loss on account of mis-carriage. It was further alleged to have been agreed upon between the parties as per Condition No. 2 that neither appellant No. 3 nor its Agent, would be responsible for any loss on account of mis-carriage. On the basis of stipulation made as per Condition No.2, it is stated by the appellants that liability of damages cannot be fastened upon with respect to the loss of the bills and truck receipts which were lost during the transit. (7) The appellants also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Balotra to try the case in their written statement.As according to them, the act of cheating and forgery has been committed at Kanpur and the loss occasioned to the plaintiff was also on account of delivery of consignments on the strength of the forged endorsement in favour of fictitious person at Kanpur, therefore, only Kanpur Civil Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (8) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed as many as nine issues and the plaintiff and defendants were given full opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (9) Learned trial court after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with costs against defendant- appellants No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. It has further decreed that the defendant- appellants No. 1 to 3 will have to pay cost to respondents No.2 and 3 they have been made parties unnecessarily at their behest. (10) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment given by the learned trial court. I have been taken through the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned trial court with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. (11) It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, at the first instance, that learned Civil Court at Balotra has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit within the meaning of Section 20, CPC. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 have taken objection about territorial jurisdiction of Balotra Civil Court, at the first instance, before issues were settled by the learned trial court, therefore, within the meaning to Sub-section (1) of Sec.21, CPC, the defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 are at liberty to raise question of territorial jurisdiction before this court in First Appeal. (12) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 strenuously urged before me that the suit was instituted within territorial jurisdiction of Balotra Civil Court where part of cause of action accrued within the meaning of Sub-section (c) of Sec. 20, CPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the res- pondent urged before me that learned trial court has correctly addressed the question relating to its territorial jurisdiction within the meaning of Sec. 20, CPC holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. (13) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. In my humble opinion, Sub-section (1) of Sec. 21, CPC which was enacted by amending Act No. 104 of 1976 and is made applicable with effect from 1.2.1977 was inserted with a view to expedite disposal of the suits and to avoid entertainment of technical objections about territorial jurisdiction unless there is a failure of justice. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 21, CPC provides that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction can be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and even if it is so raised, would not be fatal unless there is a failure of justice. Thus,the mandatory provisions as envisaged under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 21, CPC clearly provides that before raising objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction before the appellate or revisional courts, the appellants are required to satisfied three conditions precedent with regard to such objection about territorial jurisdiction, which are as follows; (1) The objection must be taken in the Court of the first instance. (2) The objection must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity i.e. before the issues are settled, and (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. (14) In my humble opinion, these three conditions enumerated above must co-exist.To my mind, even if first or second condition or both of the conditions are satisfied but it is found by the court that there is no failure of justice, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be entertained. (14) In my humble opinion, these three conditions enumerated above must co-exist.To my mind, even if first or second condition or both of the conditions are satisfied but it is found by the court that there is no failure of justice, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be entertained. (15) From the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, it is easily deducible that within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Sec. 21, CPC, a statutory recognition has been given to the principle that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction can be waived if the defendant waives this objection by his conduct or otherwise then subsequently on account of this waiver, he can be precluded from taking any such objection before the appellate or revisional courts. (16) In the present case, it was open to the defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 to have questioned the authority and territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court when the witnesses were produced before it. In the present case, it is borne out from the record that the defendant-appellants No.1 to 3 had participated in recording the statements of witnesses and also participated in the suit proceedings for about years without raising any objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The defendant-appellants cross-examined the plaintiffs witnesses and they produced their own witnesses in support of respective claim which amounts to waiver of the territorial jurisdiction. (17) To my mind, in the present set of circumstances, all the three conditions precedent enumerated in the preceding paragraph for entertaining the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction as envisaged under Sub-section (1) of Sec.21 CPC are not satisfied. In my considered opinion, in the present case only first condition of raising objection regarding territorial jurisdiction taken in the court of first instance is satisfied. But so far as the as the other two per-conditions enumerated in the preceding paragraph are missing in the present case. In the present case, there is no failure of justice in recording the evidence by the learned trial court, therefore, the objection raised at the appellate stage by the defendant- appellants No. 1 to 3 relating to territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable as contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 CPC. In the present case, there is no failure of justice in recording the evidence by the learned trial court, therefore, the objection raised at the appellate stage by the defendant- appellants No. 1 to 3 relating to territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable as contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 CPC. (18) I am of the view that the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant- appellants No.1 to 3 about territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court has been raised merely to be rejected, therefore, the said argument is repelled for the reasons stated above. (19) It is next contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 that in view of the conditions incorporated in Ex. A/2/1 to A/2/8 neither the defendant-appellant No. 3 nor its agent would be responsible for any loss on account of miscarriage. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, defendant-appellant No. 3-Punjab National Bank, Balotra was free to send documents by post and if during transit, the documents were lost, the Bank cannot be held responsible for damages on account of loss of the documents in transit. (20) The aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant- appellants No.1 to 3 are not acceptable, inasmuch as, no question about loss of documents in transit arises in the present but in fact due to negligence and misconduct attributable to defendant -appellant No.3 the consignments had been delivered on the basis of forgery committed by somebody by making a false endorsement in favour of fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and obtained the consignments without payment causing loss to the plaintiff- respondent No. 1. (21) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid misconduct and negligence attributable to defendant-appellant No. 3 leading to forgery committed by some one by making false endorsement in favour of fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and manipulated the consignments without payment causing damages to plaintiff-respondent No.1. (21) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid misconduct and negligence attributable to defendant-appellant No. 3 leading to forgery committed by some one by making false endorsement in favour of fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and manipulated the consignments without payment causing damages to plaintiff-respondent No.1. Learned trial court has correctly addressed itself on the aforesaid question and after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that due to negligence and mala fide attitude adopted by the defendant- appellants, some one has got opportunity to commit forgery by making false endorsement in favour of fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and obtained the consignments without payment.The finding recorded by the learned trial court on this score is eminently just and proper and based on evidence available on record with which I am at one. The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned trial court does not require interfe- rence by this Court. (22). It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, question of damages on account of loss of the documents in transit, does not arise as here the original four truck receipts itself have been interpolated by some one in the name of Naveen Chand and had obtained the consignments without payment due to negligence of defendant-appellant No.3. (23). It is well to remember that exigency of business do from time to time render necessary for carrying out of instructions of a principal by an Agent, who is also expected to act for the purpose faithfully with due diligence in a bonafide manner. Here in the present case, the defendant-appellants No.1 to 3 have not ac- ted faithfully with due diligence as a prudent man which has given opportunity to somebody to commit forgery by making false endorsement in the documents by a fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and obtained the consignments without payment. (24). Here in the present case, the defendant-appellants No.1 to 3 have not ac- ted faithfully with due diligence as a prudent man which has given opportunity to somebody to commit forgery by making false endorsement in the documents by a fictitious person namely Naveen Chand and obtained the consignments without payment. (24). It is to be noticed that under Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act, the relationship between principal and person duly appointed as an agent to act in business of agency, is well defined providing that where principal holding an express or implied authority to name another person to act for the principal in the business of the agency, has named another person accordingly, such person is not a sub-agent but an agent of principal for such part of the business of the agency as is entrusted to him. The relationship of principal and agent is admitted in the present case, therefore, a contract on the part of principal to reimburse the agent in respect of advances made or against all liabilities incurred reasonable performance of the agency is to be presumed in the present case. Here in the present case, performance of the defendant-appellant-Bank cannot be said to be reasonable per- formance which they were entrusted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 after charging commission from him. The learned trial court has committed no error in appreciating the evidence on record in recording the finding about their negligence and malafide performance of duty entrusted to them by plaintiff-respondent No.1 after charging commission from him. (25). No other argument has been advanced in the present case by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 except the points discussed above. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant first appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs assessed to Rs. 2000/-.