A stipulation in a contract for carriage of goods to the effect that a particular court alone would have jurisdiction in respect of claims with regard to goods entrusted for carriage does not oust the jurisdiction of a court that otherwise has jurisdiction, provided that both courts have concurrent jurisdiction and the parties have chosen the particular court by mutual agreement.

( 1 ) IN this revisional application, which is being heard as a contested one, a short point arises for our consideration as to whether a stipulation in a contract for carriage of goods to the effect that Bombay court alone would have jurisdiction in respect of claims with regard to goods entrusted for carriage would oust the iurisdiction. of the Alipore Court to entertain a suit for damages for non-delivery of such goods at the instance of an assignee of a consignment note, though such court has otherwise iurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff/opposite party certain textile goods valued at Rs. 29,842. 91 were delivered to the de-fondant company, a common carrier at their Pondicherry Office for carriage to Balanagar against 3 consignment notes. The defendant having failed to deliver the goods so entrusted to them, the plaintiff as the assignee of the consignment notes instituted Money Suit No. 20 of 1976. In the plaint, the claim was laid on 3 alternative grounds, namely. (1) damages on the ground of non-delivery of the goods so entrusted. (2) damages for breach of the contract for carriage and (3) damages for wrongful detention and/or conversion of such goods to their own use or purpose. The suit was instituted in the 1st Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore, 24 Par-ganas. It was claimed that Alipore court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the goods being deliverable at Batanagar within the jurisdiction of the said court, a part of the cause of action arose within the said jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE defendant in contesting the suit by filing a written statement raised an objection that the court of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot entertain the suit in view of Clause 17 of the contract for carriage printed on the reverse of the consignment note which provided that Bombay court alone will have jurisdiction in respect of all claims arising under the consignment or with regard to the goods entrusted for transport.

( 4 ) A preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction of the Court at Alipore was raised and the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated January 5, 1982. decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. According to the learned Subordinate Judge when a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of his court, a term in a contract as incorporated in Clause 17 referred to hereinbefore would not oust the jurisdiction of his court to entertain or try such a suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has now preferred the present revisional application challenging the said order.

( 5 ) THE view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge particularly having regard to the reasons given therefor is apparently erroneous as the learned Judge had failed to consider the true effect of such a stipulation in a contract. The learned. Judge has failed to take note of the legal position that though the parties by mutual agreement cannot con-Eer jurisdiction upon a court which it does not possess nor can oust the jurisdiction of a court otherwise possessed by it, they can however, choose between them one out of several courts having concurrent jurisdiction. Such an agreement does not violate Section 28 of the Con-tract Act, nor is it opposed to public policy; it is. therefore, enforceable as between the parties to the agreement. There is uniformity of judicial opinion on the point and the principle is now so well settled that it needs no support with reference to any precedent. Therefore, if--as in the present case--both the courts at Bombay where lay the head office of the defendant company and the court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore do have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a suit of the present nature, the parties to the contract having chosen by mutual agreement the Bombay forum, the suit should be filed there and not at Alipore.

( 6 ) MR. Mitter appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party without d