Manmohan, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree against the defendants to the tune of Rs. 33,04,501/- along with pendent lite and future interest.

2. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the defendant No.1-company of which defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are directors, placed certain purchase orders for supply of printed aluminum collapsible tubes on the plaintiff-company at its Delhi office. Pursuant to the purchase order, the plaintiff-company made deliveries to the defendant no. 1 at its work site at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and raised number of invoices. It is the case of the plaintiff that even after receipt of the goods, defendant No.1-company has failed to make payments for the goods supplied. Hence the present suit for recovery of Rs.33,04,501/-.

3. In the written statement, the defendants apart from the other defences taken, have raised a preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the present suit. Vide order dated 19th July, 2012, the following preliminary issue was framed for consideration:-

“(i) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD.

4. Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, learned counsel for defendant No.1 company submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as no cause of action arose in Delhi and merely because the plaintiff has its registered office in Delhi would not confer upon this Court with jurisdiction to try the present suit.

5. Ms. Oberoi further submitted that the purchase orders were issued by the defendants No. 1-company from Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and the goods were manufactured and dispatched from the factory premises of the plaintiff at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. She submitted that in view of the above either the Courts at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh or Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh could have had jurisdiction. However, she further submitted, that given the ouster clause contained in the invoices issued by the plaintiff, courts in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh alone have jurisdiction to try the present case.

6. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently contradicted the stance of the defendants and submitted that the purchase orders placed by the defendant No.1-company were received and accepted by the plaintiff at its office in Delhi and therefore, the contract in fact came into existence in Delhi. He further submitted that all the payments were also received by the plaintiff in Delhi and this Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.

7. Mr. Gupta admitted to the fact that the invoices issued by the plaintiff contained an ouster clause. He, however, submitted that these invoices would not have any bearing qua jurisdiction as the same were unilateral communications on behalf of the plaintiff which were not accepted by the defendants. He submitted that in absence of consensus ad idem between the parties, the said clause would not be binding upon the parties and therefore, the said clause cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the judgments of this Court in M/s. Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BPL Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd., 111 (2004) DLT 736; Taipack Limited & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal, 143 (2007) DLT 123 and Wollaque Ventilation and Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sterling Tools Ltd., 177 (2011) DLT 731.

8. This Court has gone through the paper book and heard the learned counsel for parties. In the present case, the purchase orders were issued from Baddi which were received at Delhi and subsequently the goods were dispatched by the plaintiffs from the Ghaziabad to defendant No. 1-company’s work site at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that since parts of the cause of action has arisen at all of the above mentioned three places, the Courts at all these places would be competent to e