Parties to a contract may validly agree to vest jurisdiction in a specific court among several competent options. Such exclusive clauses must be enforced, provided the chosen court has the necessary legal competence, effectively excluding other courts from entertaining the suit.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.B. Phookan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), the petitioners have assailed the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Petition No. 290/2019 arising out of Title Suit No. 527/2018, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 for return of the plaint came to be rejected.

3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the respondent, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 527/2018 before the trial court seeking, inter alia, declaration, specific performance, alternative monetary reliefs, and injunctions. At the threshold, the defendants/petitioners filed Petition No. 290/2019 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC praying for return of the plaint on the ground that the courts at Guwahati lacked territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as the parties had expressly conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at Delhi. The trial court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application, giving rise to the present revision petition.

4. Mr. P. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that it is an undisputed position that the parties, by agreement, have conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at Delhi. In support of such contention, he has drawn attention to the General Conditions of Contract, the Memorandum to the Form of Tender, as well as the Additional Conditions of Contract. It is further submitted that although the work was to be executed in Mizoram and a regional office of the petitioner is situated at Guwahati, once the parties have consciously agreed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at Delhi, the same would be binding. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem , (1989) 2 SCC 163 and M/s Exl Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. /b>., (2020) 12 SCC 667.

5. Per contra, Mr. R.B. Phookan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that notwithstanding the existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, substantial parts of the cause of action arose within Guwahati. It is contended that the petitioner has its office at Guwahati, the work order was issued from Guwahati, negotiations were held there, advances were mobilised there, and significant correspondence, including execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.10.2016, took place at Guwahati. Accordingly, it is urged that the courts at Guwahati possess jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the CPC.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, including the authorities cited at the Bar.

7. The short question that arises for determination is whether, in the presence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the courts at Delhi alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of other competent courts.

8. On a perusal of the contract dated 28.12.2012, it is evident that Article 5.0 (Governing Law and Jurisdiction) stipulates that jurisdiction shall vest in the court(s) specified in the “Memorandum” to the “Form of Tender.” Clause 76.3 of the General Conditions of Contract further reinforces that only the