M.L. Joseph Francis, J.

The above appeals are filed by the petitioner, M/s. Muthoot Vehicle & Asset Finance Ltd. in O.P. (Arb) No.155 of 2009, 934 of 2009, 943 of 2009 and 940 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Ernakulam. Respondents in the above appeals are respondents in the respective Arb.O.Ps.

2. The common facts of the case are briefly as follows:

The appellant is a public limited company having its registered office at Ernakulam. The company is mainly engaged in the business of providing loans on hypothecation and guarantee basis. The appellant provided loan facility for the purchase of vehicle to the first respondent in the above O.Ps. The second respondent in O.P. No. 940 of 2009 and second respondent in U.P. No. 943 of 2009 stood as guarantors to the first respondent in the above case. The agreement provides for arbitration in the event of dispute. As per the terms and conditions of agreement, respondents have to repay the loan with interest in monthly instalments. After the initial payment of few instalments, the respondents defaulted in making monthly instalments. In spite of repeated notices, the respondents did not repay the defaulted instalments. Therefore, the appellant initiated steps for arbitration. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed the above application under S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for attachment of immovable property belonging to the respondents. That application under S.9 was declined by the court below holding that the court has no territorial jurisdiction as the property sought to be attached is situated in other Districts and all the petitions are ordered to be returned for presentation before the proper court under O.VII R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Against that common order, the above arbitration appeals are filed.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the agreement of loan in each case was executed at Ernakulam and as per the agreement, the venue of arbitration is at Ernakulam. Moreover, the loan was sanctioned at Ernakulam and the registered office of the appellant company is at Ernakulam, and hence, District Court, Ernakulam is having jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration O.Ps. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents in Arbitration Appeal relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 740 (Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.) argued that parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on court not possessed by it under Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the agreement in question was not executed at Ernakulam and therefore the District Court, Ernakulam, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. In the same decision, it was further observed that the agreement that one of the courts having such jurisdiction alone, shall try the dispute is not contrary to public policy, and does not contravene S.28 of the Contract Act. The question whether the respondents executed the agreement in question at Ernakulam or not is a matter to be decided after taking evidence. The order under challenge shows that it was passed without giving notice to the respondents and therefore the respondents could not file any counter stating that the District Court Ernakulam has no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration O.Ps.

5. Cl.17(a) of the agreement provided for Arbitration in the event of dispute. As per Cl.17(h) of the agreement the venue of Arbitration shall be at Ernakulam. One of the reasons stated by the court below to hold that, that court had no territorial jurisdiction is that the respondents are residing outside the jurisdiction of that court. As per S.2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is vested with jurisdiction to decide the question forming the said matter of arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of