Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which does not possess it under the Code.

1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed in I.A. 4235/94 in O.S. 2121/94 on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. Short facts are: The respondent R. Sivakumar had filed the suit against the petitioner Larsen and Toubro Ltd., in O.S. 2121/94 for a declaration that order of the defendant dated 5.2.94 transferring the plaintiff from the defendant factory-workshop at Manapakkam village to Kandla-Bhatinda job site as illegal and mala fide and for consequently injunction restraining the defendant from giving effect to the said order dt. 5.2.94. He also filed I.A. 4235/94 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., praying for ad-interim injunction till the disposal of the suit, restraining the respondent from giving effect to the order of the respondent dt. 5.2.94. After enquiry, the learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras had allowed the petition. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent in the Court below, has come forward with this petition.

3. Mr. Somayaji, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Court below does not have jurisdiction to try the case and consequently, to pass the impugned order that objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was taken before the Court that the Court below had erroneously held that it has got jurisdiction and had passed the interim order and it is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the court below relied upon the clause in the promotion order Ex. P8; wherein it is stated that this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of and be determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Madras only that cause of action for this suit arose at Manapakkam, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, and that the City Civil Court, Madras does not have jurisdiction over the suit claim. While so, parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court at Madras. He would add that the reliance upon this clause, by the court below is wr ong. Per contra, Mr. Umapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that parties can waive an objection to the jurisdiction and in this case, by virtue of Ex-P8 issued by the respondent, they have waived such a right to object and so they cannot object to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Madras. He would further submit that ‘Section 21,. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended, contains three requirements for that section to apply, which includes consequent failure of justice’ and in this case there was no failure of justice because of the Court below exercising jurisdiction in this case and so this objection is not tenable.

4. I have carefully considered that submission made by the learned counsel. To consider this objection, the relevant clause in Ex. P8 promotion order need be extracted. It reads as follows:

“Any dispute between yourself and the Company concerning with or relating to or arising out of this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of and be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in Madras only.”

The undoubted fact is that the respondent was working at Manapakkam, at the time, when the transfer order was made. Manapakkam is within the jurisdiction of District Munsifs Court, Poonamallee. Now the suit is filed at City Civil Court at Madras. The above clause is pressed into service by the respondent. Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the City Civil Court at Madras will have the jurisdiction to try the suit, in view of the above clause.

5. Section 21(1) of Code of Civil Procedure is relevant and it needs extraction. It reads as follows:—

“No objection as to place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and