( 1 )

( 2 ). In a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of certain amount being the price of the goods supplied to the respondent, an objection was taken by the respondent that as per agreement between the parties, printed on the bills submitted by the plaintiff, only courts in Bombay had jurisdiction to try the suit and Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the same. This plea was, however, denied by the plaintiff and it was stated that the conditions printed on the bills did not constitute a binding agreement between the parties and as part of cause of action had accrued in Delhi, the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and also the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement that as per the conditions contained in the bills furnished by the plaintiff/appellant, the bombay courts alone had jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties, besides framing other issues, also framed an issue as to "whether the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit". The Trial Court, however, did not treat the said issue about territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue