Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise does not have jurisdiction

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 27.10.2004 made in I.A.No.110/2004 in O.S.No.308/2002, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Kallakurichi.)

The 1st defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner herein.

2. A suit in O.S.No.308/2002 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner/1st defendant and two others praying for a decree and judgment for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,73,012.81 together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum.

3. The Revision Petitioner as 1st respondent filed a written statement resisting the suit claim and in paragraph 8 of the written statement it was specifically pleaded by the Revision Petitioner that the Sub-Court at Kallakurichi has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose at Pondicherry only. It was further averred in the same paragraph that as per a specific clause in the schedule of exhibition of contract, all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be settled in and considered within the jurisdiction of courts at Chennai city. The Revision Petitioner has filed I.A.No.110/2004 under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(a) of Code of Civil Procedure to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and the Sub-Judge by order dated 21.8.2004 dismissed I.A.No.110/2004 by holding that the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi is having territorial jurisdiction. Hence the Revision Petitioner/1st defendant has filed the above Revision Petition against the order dated 27.10.2004.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contract dated 27.10.2001 was signed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant at Pondicherry and not at Kallakurichi as falsely alleged by the plaintiff. He further submitted that all the defendants are residing at Pondicherry and the advance amount was paid by the plaintiff at Pondicherry and therefore the entire cause of action arose only at Pondicherry. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the schedule of exhibition of contract entered into between the parties, wherein in clause 16 of the terms and conditions, it was stipulated that all disputes arising out of this contract shall be settled in and considered within the jurisdiction of the courts at Chennai city. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Sub-Court at Kallakurichi is not having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. He relied on the following judgments:-

(1) 1980-II M.L.J. 398 (Madhavakrishnan v. Sami) and (2) (2004) 4 SCC 671(Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. Excepting this, no other ground was raised to assail the order of the trial court by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chennai city and in such circumstances, even when there is a condition in clause 16 of schedule of exhibition of contract stipulating that the disputes shall be settled within the jurisdiction of courts at Chennai city, that clause is not binding on the party as the parties by agreement cannot vest jurisdiction in a place where there is no cause of action at all. He further submitted that even otherwise the words 'only', 'alone' are not stated in clause 16 and therefore the courts where the cause of action arose have got jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submitted that the film was screened at Kallakurichi and the advance amount was paid at Kallakurichi and hence the plaintiff has the liberty to file the suit either at Kallakurichi or at Pondicherry where the agreement was entered into between the parties. He relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

(1) AIR 1971 S.C. 740 (Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.). (2)1998(II) CTC 492 (Premium Industries India Ltd. v. Quality Fabricators) and (3) 2004(3) CTC 154 (New Moga Transport Co. v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.)

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents reli