( 1 ) THE petitioner State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Narol dated 12-6-1987 below Exh. 7 being an application filed by the petitioner to hear the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in Misc. Civil Applications Nos. 25 of 1987 26 of 1987 and 27 of 1987.

( 2 ) A few facts may shortly be stated to bring the controversy between the parties in a proper perspective. Brig. D. R. Kathuria was appointed Sole Arbitrator to decide different disputes between the State of Rajasthan and Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd. which arose out of three different contracts awarded to the latter by the former. The Chief Engineer Mahi-Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara filed three applications dated 21-3-1987 objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court namely the Civil Court (S. D.) at Narol contending that under Clause 41 of the Special Conditions of Contract all suits relating to the dispute arising out of the contract are required to be instituted in the trial Court of Rajasthan and praying that preliminary objection of the State of Rajasthan may be taken on record be heard and tried as a preliminary issue. The respondent Gujarat State Construction Corporation Limited filed respective replies contending that the question about jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Narol could not be decided without taking evidence in the matters since the issue involved both questions of facts and law and that therefore the jurisdictional issue could not be tried as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) SINCE all the three Miscellaneous Civil Applications raise identical questions of facts and law they were heard and decided together with the consent of both the parties and they were disposed of by a common order. For the reasons recorded by the trial Judge in his judgment he dismissed application Exh. 7 of the petitioner the State of Rajasthan for hearing the issue relating to the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 483 of 1987. Since however on behalf of the respondent a contention was raised that a single revision was not permissible in law even though the trial Judge has disposed of the three applications by a common order the petitioner has filed Civil Revision Applications Nos. 506 and 507 of 1987 to cure a technical defect. These two Civil Revision Applications were admitted and with the consent of both the parties the present common judgment is passed in all these three Civil Revision Applications.

( 5 ) THE relevant Clause 41 of the contract which relates to jurisdiction runs as under: The contract shall be governed by the law of India for the time being in force and all suits relating to the dispute arising out of this contract shall only be instituted in the trial Court of Rajasthan. There is no dispute between the parties that the clause relating to jurisdiction is identically worded in all the three contracts.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge has observed in the course of his order that in view of the concession made on behalf of the State of Rajasthan before him there is no controversy between the parties that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Narol. It was not disputed before him that in view of the definition of Court in Sec 2 (c) of the Arbitration Act 1940 the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Misc. Civil Applications filed before it. The question which was raised before the trial Court was however that even if the Civil Court at Narol had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the three Misc. Civil Applications its jurisdiction was excluded in view of Clause 41 of the contract. It was submitted before him that Clause 41 of the contract in each case was an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Narol.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondent it was contended before the trial Court relying