No specific provision in the contract regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of other courts.

1. The petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.4323 of 1995 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, has filed the above revision aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.8725 of 1995 in O.S.No.4323 of 1995, dated 20.09.1995, which was confirmed by the learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Madras in C.M.A.No.146 of 1995.

2. The plaintiff/first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.4323 of 1995 praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way releasing, sending/despatching, encashing the bank guarantee provided by the plaintiff, through the second defendant bearing Bank guarantee Nos.D2/CC1 1/43/93-94, dated 8. 1994 and D2/CC1147/47/93-94, dated 18. 1994. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.8725 of 1995, under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the second defendant officials from in any way despatching/sending/releasing the Demand Draft drawn in favour of the first respondent which represents the amount covered under the two Bank Gurantees dated 8. 1994 and 18. 1994 issued by the second respondent. The first respondent/plaintiff also filed another application in I.A.No.8726 of 1995 with which we are not concerned in this revision. The trial court in its common order dated 20.9.1995 held that it has jurisdiction to try the suit and also on merits granted injunction only with respect to the Bank Guarantee dated 18. 1994 and rejected the prayer for injunction with respect to the Bank Guarantee dated 8. 1994. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff/first respondent filed C.M.A.No.134 of 1995 on the file of the Principal City Civil Court, Madras. The Petitioner/first defendant filed another appeal in C.M.A.No.146 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Madras. The lower appellate court while dealing with the said appeals in common, dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said order passed in C.M.A.No.134 of 1995 filed by the plaintiff was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.222 of 1996, by dismissing the said revision. The first defendant/petitioner has therefore filed the present revision, aggrieved against the orders of the courts below, granting injunction with respect to the bank guarantee dated 18. 1994.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that between the parties it was agreed, with respect to the jurisdiction of the civil court, as follows:-

“239 It has been further agreed by both the parties that if there is any dispute in this deal, it will be decided in the jurisdiction of Dhanbad courts.”

On the basis of the abovesaid clause of the agreement arrived at between the parties in the meeting held on 15. 1992, the learned counsel has submitted that the City Civil Court, Madras has no jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently any order passed in the said application cannot be sustained. On merits, the learned counsel has submitted that since the plaintiff/first respondent has given bank guarantee in favour of the petitioner/first defendant as a condition for discharging some obligation, and, if the said obligation is not discharged, the first defendant is entitled to enforce the said bank guarantee, and its rights cannot be injuncted.

4. Contrary to this submission, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that since there is no exclusion of the jurisdiction of other courts, the City Civil Court, Madras has jurisdiction to try the suit. On merits, the learned counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner/first defendant has not paid the second and third installments of Rs.30,00,000 as agreed, the first respondent/plaintiff is justified in asking for an order of injunction as prayed for.

5. The clause in the bank guarantee which was dated 18. 1994, which is marked as Ex.p-18 is as follows:-

“And whereas t