1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is one of the defendants in Title Suit No. 90/2000, which was filed by opposite party no. 1 for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount mentioned in Schedules I and II as authorised dealer of Hindustan Lever Product and for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from changing the dealership for Lalganj area and also for other ancillary reliefs.

3. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.9.2003 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Sub-Judge I, Vaishali had rejected his petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) dated 5.12.2001 and the petition under Section 21 of the Code dated 20.8.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of Maha Laxmi Traders and was appointed as a Redistribution Stockist by virtue of written agreement dated 19.7.1996 (Annexure 1), clause 23 of which specifically stated that the agreement had been signed and executed in Calcutta and the Redistribution Stockist agrees that the place of payment for all g