MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned ADJ on 15.07.2010 whereby the learned ADJ has allowed an application filed by respondent under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and has directed return of the plaint with a further direction to present the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Faridabad within 4 weeks.

2. In their aforesaid application it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that in view of the exclusionary provision in the purchase order on the basis of which the appellant had supplied the goods to the respondent, Delhi Court could not have entertained the suit filed by the appellant. It was only Faridabad Court which could have decided the lis between the parties and, therefore, the suit could have been filed by the appellant only at Faridabad.

3. In this case, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellant for purchase of goods worth `14,47,140.59/-. The goods were supplied on the basis of purchase order placed by the respondent upon the appellant which contains a clause that disputes will be subject to jurisdiction of Faridabad courts only. Out of the aforesaid amount respondent made payment of `10,71,374/-. However, the balance amount remained payable. The appellant then filed a suit for recovery at Delhi which has been returned with a direction to the appellant to file the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. at Faridabad.

4. According to the appellant, the work order was placed by the respondent with the appellant at Delhi. The respondent has its registered office at Delhi. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions printed on their invoices, it has been clearly mentioned that the Courts at Delhi would have a jurisdiction to entertain and try this dispute whereas according to the respondent, the clause which governs the conditions of supply is Clause No.14 printed on the reverse of the purchase order which confers the exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes between the parties at Faridabad.

5. Clause No.-14 of the purchase order which stipulated certain conditions on its reverse, that is:

“Performance against this purchase order shall be considered due in Faridabad for place of jurisdiction and Courts at Faridabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes which may arise.”

6. Taking note of the aforesaid conditions mentioned on the reverse of the purchase order, the learned ADJ has accepted the case of the respondent and has passed the following order:

“7. Given the facts of this case, what emerges is that the defendant had placed a purchase order which on the face of it also stated that “supplies will be as per terms and conditions printed overleaf”. The reverse of this purchase order stipulated the other terms and conditions including that on jurisdiction, making it very clear that the dispute shall be referred to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Faridabad. As the purchase order mentions that conditions are printed overleaf, the attention of the addressee has definitely been drawn to it. It would have been open to the plaintiff not to transact if such terms and conditions did not suit them. They chose to supply goods. No doubt their invoice also contained the clause of submission of disputes of Delhi Courts but it does not exclude the jurisdiction of the other courts. The conditions printed on the invoice is not accompanied by the words “exclusive”, “alone or only”

8. Under such circumstances, the terms and conditions of the purchase order would prevail. The supply of goods under the purchase order clearly held a choice of forum for adjudicating disputes by one Court to the exclusion of the others.”

7. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in M/s. Baldev Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s The Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2001 Delhi 391 wherein it has been observed:

“11. On a perusal of the correspondence, as proved on record, it is seen that defen