IMPORTANT POINT
Where two or more Courts have under C.P.C. jurisdiction to try a suit, an agreement between parties that dispute shall be tried in any one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the only question that is raised is whether the High Court s conclusion that the Civil Court at Barnala had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by respondent No. 1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff No.1 ) and Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff No.2 ) is correct or not. While the trial Court held that the Barnala Court had jurisdiction, the first Appellate Court held otherwise. Accepting the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC ) the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the trial Court s view was correct.

3. The dispute arose in the following background.

The plaintiff No. 2 had purchased certain articles which were booked in 29 bales, Material was booked with New Moga Transport Co., the present appellant (defendant No. 1) for transportation to Barnala. The goods were loaded in truck No. HYN 6973. The consignment reached Barnala at 9.30 a.m. on 23.5.1993 near the factory of plaintiff No. 2 On account of a fire which took place allegedly due to electric short-circuiting there was destruction of whole of the materials. Plaintiff No. 2 claimed that he had suffered loss and lodged a claim for a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- against the present appellant i.e. defendant No. 1. Since nothing was paid and only a non-delivery of goods certificate was issued by the appellant (defendant No. 1), respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 4,63,516/- on the basis of the surveyor s report and the amount was paid to plaintiff No.2 and due receipt was obtained. Plaintiff No. 2 on receipt of the amount executed a letter of subrogation-cum-special power of attorney, assigning, abandoning and transferring all the rights in favour of plaintiff No. 1 who claims the compensation from defendant No. 1 i.e. the present appellant. In the suit a specific plea inter alia was taken by the present appellant that the Court at Barnala had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit. With reference to the consignment note, it was submitted that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the consignment note it was indicated that the Court having jurisdiction was the one situated at Udaipur. As noted above, the trial Court did not accept the plea that the Court at Udaipur alone had jurisdiction. But in appeal, the first Appellate Court upset the verdict of the trial Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court restored the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief and Court at Barnala had jurisdiction.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant (defendant No. 1) submitted that the High Court has clearly over-looked the fact that the parties by an agreement have fixed a particular Court to be the Court that has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Without any plausible reason or basis the High Court upset the decision of the first Appellate Court.

5. Undisputedly, in the consignment note it was stated as follows:

"The Court at Head office city shall only be the jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment at the goods entrusted for transport".

Additionally, at the top of the consignment note the jurisdiction has been specified to be with Udaipur Court. With reference to the aforesaid indication in the consignment note, learned counsel for the appellant stated that there is clear exclusion of the Courts other than the chosen one and, therefore, the suit could not have been entertained at any other place. Unfortunately, the High Court did not appreciate the factual position in its proper perspective holding that the Court at Barnala would have got jurisdiction in the ordinary course. Because of the exclusion clause as embodied in the consignment note and specific indication in the consignment note that the Udaipur Court alone has jurisdiction the Hi