The validity of the jurisdiction clause in an agreement and the determination of cause of action based on the place of goods supply and payment location.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`Code' hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) set aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Court of Sh. Virender Bhat, Ld. District Judge Commercial Court, North Rohini, Delhi wherein the application under Order VII Rule 10 as well as application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant in the Civil suit (commercial) No. 645/2022 titled as Subhash Taneja Versus Mohd. Ghous were dismissed by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial).

b) pass any such other or further order which this Hon 'ble Court may think fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The parties in the instant case are engaged in the business of buying and selling apples, regularly entering into agreements for the purchase and sale of the said commodity. The respondent/plaintiff had supplied the goods worth Rs.32,00,000/- to the petitioner/defendant but the amount was not paid by the petitioner on account of financial difficulties.

3. On 6th September, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for a total amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner/defendant in 10 installments of Rs.1,50,000/- each, but the same was also defaulted by the petitioner except the initial installment of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. On 2nd November, 2022, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in Rohini District Court, Delhi, against the petitioner for the recovery of an amount of Rs.40,56,500/-. In the said suit, the petitioner filed applications under Order VII Rule 10, of the Code seeking return of the plaint on the grounds that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi, and under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the alleged payment has already been made to the respondent.

5. The learned Trial Court vide order 18th May, 2023 dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner and held that the cause of action partly arose in favor of the respondent/plaintiff as the respondent had supplied goods to the petitioner from its office in Azadpur, Delhi and the payment was required to be made by the petitioner/defendant in the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff which also falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts situated in Delhi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code against the impugned order.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the respondent is based on a settlement agreement executed between the parties in Telangana and no cause of action arose in favor of the respondent within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts.

7. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court passed an order without considering that the respondent had failed to provide bank account details of the concerned person and the Court solely relied upon the oral contentions of the respondent regarding the existence of a bank account in Azadpur, Delhi, which erroneously established that a portion of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court had subsequently referred to clause 5 of the agreement where it was stated that disputes, if any, between the parties shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi, but the same is only applicable when there is jurisdiction of the two competent Courts, which is not there in the present case and the Courts at Telangana have the sole jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as the petitioner resides and works at Adilabad, Telangana.

9. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussions, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

10. Heard