JUDGMENT : By relying on the legal position settled by the Apex Court in British India Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries and ors (1990 SCR (1) 884) = (1990 SCC (3) 481), the trial court found that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the suit and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. presumably on the basis of confinement of jurisdiction with U.S. Court under a bill of lading, against which the plaintiff came up. 2. A bill of lading was drawn with respect to the consignment, but its application was confined only port to port i.e. port in which the consignment was given for transit upto the port wherein the consignment was received and discharged. Since the bill of lading and the liability thereunder would extend only upto the destination port and when the goods were received at the destination port by the person responsible to receive the same either as a bailee or as an agent, the respective liability and obligation with respect to the goods or consignment after its discharge at the destination port would not stand covered by the bill of lading. It is a case wherein some theft has occurred not during the course of transit but after the consignment was taken over by the agent i.e. the bailee from the destination port. Hence, for the liability and responsibility, the parties are not covered by the bill of lading, when the goods and consignment were already taken over by the bailee or the agent from the destination port. Hence, the confinement of jurisdiction with U.S. Court under the bill of lading has no application in the instant case. The order of the trial court hence will stand set aside by restoring the suit on file. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 11/07/2022 to proceed further in the matter. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.