( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the original defendants. the plaintiffs placed an order on a printed form of the defendants on which it was printed in bold types Subject to Madras Jurisdiction. An order form was signed by the plaintiffs and sent to the defendants. The learned Judge of Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad rejected the contention of the defendants that only the Madras Court had jurisdiction and decreed the suit. Therefore the original defendants have now come to this Court in revision. The main contention urged by them is that only the Madras Court has jurisdiction in view of the fact that the order form signed by the plaintiffs contains in bold types Subject to Madras jurisdiction and it is also underlined in print. This contention must be accepted because when the order form signed by the plaintiffs contains in bold types the words Subject to Madras Jurisdiction it must be taken that the plaintiffs agreed to the term that only the Madras Court must have jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the opponents contends that the words Subject to Madras Jurisdiction do not mean that the Madras Court alone has jurisdiction. He also contends that t