ORDER :- This is a Revision Application filed by the original defendant against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 12th March 1975 answering the preliminary issue against him and in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff, Kisanlal Mataprasad carrying on business under the name and style of "Shciram Kavelu Bhandar" having his place of business in Gandhibag Nagpur filed the present suit against the applicant defendant M/s. Hindustan Tiles Corporation, having its place of business at Ollur in Kerala State. The suit was filed for recovery of a Rs. 5,500/- for breach of a contract. In the plaint itself it was alleged by the plaintiff that he had entered into the suit agreement with the defendant's representative on the assurance that the condition about the jurisdiction of Trichur Court on the reverse of the contract form is merely a printed condition and not binding on him. It was also contended that the condition mentioned in the order form restricting the jurisdiction to Trichur Court only cannot restrict the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Nagpur and, therefore, the Court at Nagpur has jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as the cause of action for the suit arose at Nagpur.

3. The defendant in its written-statement denied this allegation and submitted that the Nagpur Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit and, therefore, the suit will have to be dismissed on that count alone.

4. On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court framed a preliminary issue in the following terms :

"Has this Court territorial Jurisdiction to try this suit ?"

5. In support of this preliminary issue the parties adduced their evidence. The defendant examined his witness at Ex. 17. He supported the defendant's version that by conditions Nos. 9 and 10 on the order form in Ex. 18, which is an agreement arrived at between the parties consciously and duly executed by the plaintiff, only Trichur Court in Kerala State has got jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff examined himself at Ex. 19 and stated that the Court at Nagpur has jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was not disputed before him that both the Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit as part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of Trichur Court as well as the Nagpur Court. However, while answering the question as to whether the parties to the agreement can restrict themselves to the jurisdiction of Tirchur Court, the learned Judge did not agree with the proposition that such a restriction can take away the original jurisdiction of Nagpur Court. He also observed that the learned counsel for the defendant also could not convince him on that point. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, in view of this legal position and the evidence on the point, it was not possible for him to hold that the Nagpur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is this order which is challenged before me in this Civil Revision Application.

7. Shri Bhonsule, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-defendant, contended before me that the learned Judge of the trial Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusion that there cannot be any agreement between the parties to restrict the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Court. In support of this proposition he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ghatge and Patil (Transport) Ltd. Kolhapur v. Madhusudan (1977 Mah LJ 365) : (AIR 1977 Bom 299) as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (AIR 1971 SC 740). So far as the factual position is concerned, Shri Bhonsule contended that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the parties at all. Therefore his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document