Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present appeal is being preferred for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2001, passed in money suit no. 23 of 1998 by Sub-Judge-IV, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to decree the aforementioned money suit in favour of the plaintiff / respondent and directed the appellants / defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,20,451.66/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand four hundred and fifty-one rupees and 66 paise) with interest at the rate of 23% on monthly rates w.e.f. 15.03.1996 along with interest pendent lite at the same rate and has further held that the plaintiff is also entitled to realization of 6% per annum of simple interest from the date of order till its realization.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants (Bihar State Electricity Board) floated a tender bearing NIT No. 131 for supply of 250 MT G.I. wires as per specification in all over Bihar.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that clause 27 of NIT No. 131 contained the jurisdiction of Court clause which is read as:—

“the Civil Court of Patna shall alone have an exclusive jurisdiction to decide any difference / dispute clause for and against Bihar State Electricity Board / Contractor / Suppliers arising out of in respect of the said NIT, contract agreement of purchased order.”

4.1. The clause 27 further in its second para is read as:—

“the tenders of the firms who are agreeable to accept the above terms of general condition will only be considered and others will be outright rejected.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent / plaintiff had participated in the tender process and was selected for supply of GI wires and accordingly a contract was signed between the appellants and respondent / plaintiff bearing contract no. 29 dated 17.08.1994 (Exhibit- A), wherein clause 1 of the contract stated that:—

“1. The supplier agrees to deliver the above said materials in conformity with the provisions of general conditions of NIT and other documents referred to above which forms a part of this contract…”

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after signing of the contract, a purchase order no. 29 dated 24.02.1994 (Exhibit B) was issued to the respondent / plaintiff for supply of 140 MT quantity of GI wires.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that bare perusal of the purchase order dated 24.02.1994, it appears that clause 14 of the purchase order contained the jurisdiction clause same as NIT and said that the Civil Court, Patna shall alone have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the difference:—

“the Civil Court of Patna shall alone have an exclusive jurisdiction to decide any differences / disputes / clause for and against Bihar State Electricity Board / contractor / supplier, arising out of in respect of the said NIT contract agreement of purchased order.”

8. The plaintiff / respondent vide its letter dated 07.03.1994 (Exhibit 2/H) objected to payment clause and jurisdiction clause, the difference between the parties came with respect to penalty and payment of money.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff / respondent filed a money suit bearing money suit no. 23 of 1998 before the Court of Sub-Judge-IV, Bhagalpur for claim of Rs. 2,24503/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty-four thousand five hundred and three).

10. The appellant (Bihar State Electricity Board) filed its written statement and objected to the jurisdiction of the Court for trying the money suit in Bhagalpur in terms of the contract and submitted that in terms of the NIT No. 1331 and clause 27 of the NIT as well as the clause 14 of the purchase order, which suggests that:—

“the Civil Court of Patna shall alone have an exclusive jurisdiction to decide any differences / disputes / clause for and against Bihar State Elec