Hasnain Massodi, J.:-

1. Mir Engineers and Builders, Samandar Bagh SP College Road, Srinagar-respondent in Civil revision on hand and petitioner in Civil Transfer Application being CTA No. 61/2011 (hereinafter Mir Engineers) vide No. MEB/DGS/GREAVES/248-07 dated 5th August 2007 placed supply Order with M/s. Sanjay Diesel Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-petitioner in the Civil revision and respondent in Civil Transfer Application ('Sanjay Diesels', for short) for supply of 546 KVA DG Sets at the rate of 1.63 lac per set and 15 KVA 27 DG sets of at the rate of Rs. 2.79 lacs. The DG Sets were to be supplied by Mir Engineers to Chief Engineer, Headquarters, 15 Corps and the supplier i.e. M/s. Sanjay Diesel was duly informed in this regard. The transaction ran into rough weather after the supply order was partly acted upon. If Mir Engineers are to be believed, Sanjay Diesel did not provide service back up and few gensets, had mechanical defect and could not operate. Non-availability of service back up and mechanical defect in a few supplied gensets, are said to have exposed Mir Engineers to immense loss and mental agony.

2. Be that as it may, Mir Engineers on 18th April 2008 filed a suit in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar for recovery of Rs. 36 lacs from Mir Engineers with costs and interest at reasonable rate till the amount was realised. Mir Engineers admitted that an amount of Rs. 29 lacs was payable by the firm to Sanjay Diesels. It was further pleaded that as an amount of Rs. 69 lacs was recoverable from the Sanjay Diesels on the grounds set out in Para 33 of the plaint, the amount of Rs. 29 lacs when deducted from Rs. 65 lacs, recoverable from Sanjay Diesels, an amount of Rs. 36 lacs remained to be payable by the firm.

3. The suit was resisted by the Sanjay Diesels inter alia on the ground that the Court at Srinagar lacked jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the suit. It was pleaded that as per the invoices whereby the goods were supplied "all disputes" were "subject to Kathua jurisdiction only" and Principal District Judge, Kathua alone could entertain and try the suit. It was next pleaded that as the order was placed and delivered at Kathua, DG Sets tested by the Mir Engineers at Kathua, and payment received at Kathua, the Court at Kathua alone had jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. Learned Trial Judge on 7th November 2009 upon perusal of the pleadings framed as many as 15 issues for adjudication. Two of the issues, being Issue No. 1 and 3 noticed below, were treated as preliminary issues.

i) Whether, there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to the present suit and

ii) Whether this court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

5. The Trial Court vide Order dated 11th July 2012, decided both the issues in favour of Mir Engineers and against the Sanjay Diesels. The suit was held to be maintainable and Court at Srinagar to have jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. The Trial Court order dated 11th July 2012 is questioned in the Civil revision petition on hand on the grounds set out in the petition. The Order is said to be self-contradictory and depicting mis-conception of law on the part of trial Court. The preliminary issues according, to petitioner have been decided on extraneous consideration, not relevant to the question of jurisdiction in commercial transaction where parties by agreement oust jurisdiction of one of the Courts, otherwise having jurisdiction and restrict jurisdiction to one of such Courts. The trial Court is said to have erred while holding the suit to be maintainable inasmuch as there was sufficient material before the trial Court to conclude that Sanjay Diesels was not under a contractual obligation to provide service back up and that Mir Engineers had received entire amount on account of supply of 54 Gensets from Chief Engineer Headquarters, 15 Corps.

7. Sanjay Diesels during pendency of the suit of Mir Engineers pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar