The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of contractual provisions regarding territorial jurisdiction and their binding nature on the parties involved.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President — Mr. Chander Mohan, Advocate of Nabha (Punjab), has come up in appeal against the order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Kaithal, whereby the complaint of Saket Kumar Mangal, Advocate of Kaithal, alleging deficiency in service against the appellant in the matter of publication and supply of monthly Journal, namely, 'Civil Court Cases' has been allowed by issuing the following direction:

"We direct respondent No. 1 not to discontinue the supply of journals to the complainant, to supply up-to-date any other parts of journals to the complainant, not to insist upon the securing of Terms and Condition No. 5 of Life Membership Certificate and lastly to pay a sum of Rs. 15.000/- as compensation on account of harassment suffered by the complainant."

2. According to the complainant, who is a practising Advocate having his office at Kaithal in Haryana, he became life member by paying Rs. 2,500/- on 8.1.1994 by way of subscription for the monthly Journal of 'Civil Court Cases' to be supplied by the appellant throughout his life. However, the supply of monthly parts of the journal was discontinued towards the end of December, 1994 and aggrieved by this deficiency in service he approached the learned District Forum, Kaithal, for the award of suitable compensation. In the written reply filed by Mr. Chander Mohan, an Advocate of Nabha, publisher and owner of the journal 'Civil Court Cases', though the allegations made in the complaint were denied on merits also yet a preliminary objection was raised challenging the maintainability of the complaint at Kaithal, on the ground that the contract of life membership having been entered into between the parties at Nabha, the learned District Forum at Kaithal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint without recording any finding one way or the other about the preliminary objection.

3. In the appeal before us, Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Kaithal, is wholly without jurisdiction as the learned District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute in view of Condition No. 9 of the Life Membership Certificate signed by the complainant, which reads as under:

"In case of any dispute qua this Life Membership, the same is subject to the jurisdiction of Courts/Forum at Nabha only."

Since this clause was accepted by the complainant voluntarily, and Harbans Lal Sikri respondent No. 2, a book-seller of Kaithal, was never appointed as an agent of the appellant and the contract for the supply of the journal having been entered into and completed at Nabha, the District Forum at Kaithal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In reply thereto, Mr. Y.K. Mangal, Advocate, appearing for complainant- respondent No. 1, pleaded that as the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was remitted by him from Kaithal, the bar stipulated in Condition No. 9 of the Contract of Life Membership, could not be enforced against him.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant has considerable merit and deserves to be accepted. Once it was stipulated as a condition of contract entered into and signed by the complainant that in case of any dispute only Nabha Courts/Forum shall have the jurisdiction, the condition could not be unilaterally obliterated by the complainant's act of remitting the amount from Kaithal. Therefore, no part of cause of action having arisen at Kaithal and there being a complete ouster of jurisdiction against the Kaithal District Forum, the complaint was not maintainable before the said Forum at Kaithal. Consequently, we accept the appeal, set aside the orde