A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel representing the Respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') against the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Money Suit No. 02 of 2009, wherein the preliminary issue, regarding jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, was decided against the Petitioner.

3. The facts, sans unnecessary details, may be summarized, as follows:

The Plaintiff-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura 3 CRP No. 66 of 2010 Page 3 of 17 for realization of an amount of Rs. 2,31,556/- with interest thereon from the Petitioner, which was lying as outstanding payment allegedly withheld by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner and the pro-forma Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in the said suit, filed a common written statement against the averments and reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondents, particularly, raising the issue of maintainability of the suit. According to the Petitioner, the suit is not maintainable as the Court at Dharmanagar, has no jurisdiction to try the suit, since the matter in dispute, lies with the Court of Agra jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the Petitioner herein and the pro-forma Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a petition, in the Court below under Order 14 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for deciding the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to try the suit, by specifically stating therein that the Petitioner had categorically mentioned in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable at Dharmanagar. It has been further stated in the petition that the learned trial Court at Dharmanagar do not have jurisdiction to try the suit and the matter in dispute lies with the Agra jurisdiction. The Plaintiff-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed written objection against the said petition stating therein that there was no necessity of framing a preliminary issue, as the jurisdictional matter could not be decided in isolation of the issues 4 CRP No. 66 of 2010 Page 4 of 17 involved in the suit and it has to be decided and determined along with other issues, after recording of the evidence.

4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 24.05.2010, decided the preliminary issue in the negative by holding as follows:

... Has the court jurisdiction to try the suit?

2. After the preliminary issue was framed the Plaintiff sought for time for filing W.O. and considering the ground advanced by the Plaintiff I allow.... time to the Plaintiff for filing W.O. The Plaintiff filed W.O. on 30/03/10 challenging the contention of the Defendants regarding jurisdictional bar. The following are 2 main points on which the Plaintiff challenged the contention of the Defendants in this regard.

i) There is no bilateral agreement between the parties governing the place of jurisdiction of suit arising between them and, (ii) the words appearing in the cash memo on which the Defendants have challenged the jurisdiction in unilateral and as such it cannot be termed as a finding agreement governing the jurisdiction.

3. Mr. H. Nath, Ld. counsel representing the Defendants has argued on behalf of the Defendant to convince the court regarding the petition of the Defendants. Mr. S. P. Dattapurkayasta, Ld. counsel appearing alongwith Mr. A. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate has argued at length on behalf of the Plaintiff. I have considered their submissions. I have also carefully gone through the petition and the objection of the other side and the materials available on record to decide the matter in hand. I have also considered all the surrounding fact and circumstance of the case.

4. In m