JUDGMENT

A.P.MISRA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 16th July, 1999. Under which the High Court set aside the order passed by the District Judge and allowed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the lower Court with the modification that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at a time instead of Rs. 1,00.000/-. The number of grounds have been raised challenging the order of the High Court but for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal. learned counsel for the appellant has confined It to the question, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case It is the Court of Calcutta or the Court of Orissa which has the Jurisdiction to decide the issues raised. In order to appreciate this we are hereby giving certain essential facts. Respondent obtained a bus on lease dated 14th August, 1977. The period of lease being 36 months on payment of monthly lease rental In 35 months. The said lease period came to an end on the 14th August, 2000. It is not in dispute that the respondent defaulted in making the payment of the Instalments and in spite of demand the payment has not been made. As per Cl. 33 of the said agreement, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator, an advocate of Calcutta for deciding the dispute. In spite of notice none appeared for the respondent. The appellant made an application under S. 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1966 before the City Civil Court. Calcutta for appointment of Receiver for taking over the possession of the suit vehicle who was appointed. Subsequently, the arbitrator passed an award In favour of the appellant which is not in dispute consequently the Receiver took over the possession of the said vehicle on 19th December, 1998.

(4) THEREAFTER respondent filed suit for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (junior division) Bhubaneshwar challenging the order that the repossession of the vehicle was illegal and hence for a direction to redeliver the same to the respondent and for fixing rescheduling of the payment due as against the respondent. The appellant filed objection in this case, the first being that In terms of Cl. 33 of the lease agreement an arbitrator was appointed, he initiated the proceedings and since in spite of notice to the respondent he did not appear which finally culminated into an award with the appointment of Receiver. This order has become final hence the present suit should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata as it was between the same parties. Secondly, the question of jurisdiction was also raised as in view of a specific clause under the said agreement that only the Court at Calcutta will have jurisdiction to try and dispute arising out of this conflict.

(5) THE Civil Judge Bhubaneshwar through its order dated 21st January, 1969 allowed the respondents application for repayment of outstanding instalment to the appellant within a month and pay the subsequent instalment regularly as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and also directed for the release of the said vehicle after the outstanding dues are paid. As against this order of the trial Court the appellant preferred an appeal and the District Judge through its order dated 11th March, 1999, allowed the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the trial Court judgment. Aggrieved by this, respondent preferred civil revision before the High Court which was allowed, confirming the order passed by the trial Court. It is this order which is the subject-matter of appeal before, us for considerationn

(6) TWO points which are up for our consideration is, first, regarding the arrears and its payment by the respondent; and the other regarding the Jurisdiction of the Court namely, whether in view of the aforesaid specific clause under lease agreement, the Court of Bhubaneshwar or the Court at Calcutta would ha