( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 company challenges in this revision application the order of the trial Judge holding that clause 8 of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 dated May 9 1964 did not operate as an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the Bhuj Court and that be had discretion ill such a case to entertain a suit as otherwise great hardship and inconvenience would result to the parties if this suit was not be proceeded with in the Court at Bhuj. The plaintiff-contractor firm had taken a building contract for constructing flourmill and office premises of defendant No. 1 company at Adipur as per the agreement dated May 9 1964 The relevant clause 8 provides as under :-ALL disputes arising out of or in any way connected with this agreement shall be deemed to have arisen in Delhi and only Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction to determine the same. The plaintiff-contractor having not been paid its dues for construction in question and as defendant No. 1 had transferred these premises to defendant No. 2 the plaintiff firm further alleged that by two subsequent agreements of April 12 1965 and October 12 1966 under tripartite arrangement the plaintiffs du