1. The Appellant / Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2000 in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 passed by the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court viz., the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 on 20.04.2000, has among other things observed that the Respondent / Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount with interest and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs and further has granted future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Before the trial Court, 1 to 5 issues have been framed for adjudication in the main case. On the side of Respondent / Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A71 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant / Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 to B14 have been marked.

4. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.4773 of 1996, the Appellant / Defendant has preferred this Appeal before this Court.

5. The points that arise for determination in this Appeal are:

(i)Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit O.S.No.4773 of 1996 filed by the Respondent / Plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the Respondent / Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount of Rs.4,08,299.40 with future interest at 18% per annum till the date of payment?

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point No.1:

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Defendant, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the main suit O.S.No.4773 of 1996 because of the fact that the Appellant / Defendant is carrying on Business at Calcutta and moreover the supplies of gunny bags have been effected for the benefit of the Members of the Respondent / Plaintiff Federation and admittedly, they are not carrying out Business at Madras, but the trial Court has simply relied upon Clause 18 (1) of Ex.A1 Agreement dated 29.09.1983 entered into between the Respondent / Plaintiff and the Representative of the Appellant / Defendant and has come to the conclusion that the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and has answered in favour of Respondent / Plaintiff, which is not Per Se correct in the eye of law.

7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff that the Respondent / Plaintiff is an Apex Body called Tamil Nadu Co-operative Sugar Federation and the same is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and as per Ex.A1 Agreement dated 29.09.1983 entered into between the Respondent / Plaintiff and the Representative of the Appellant / Defendant, Clause 18.1 deals with jurisdiction which refers to Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be deemed to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Courts in Madras City only. and further Ex.A1 Agreement has been entered into at Madras, wherein the Registered Office of the Respondent / Plaintiffs Federation is situated at Madras and even though the constituents namely Sugar Co-operative Societies are situated in different parts of Tamil Nadu State yet, the Respondent / Plaintiff being the Federation is empowered to file a suit on behalf of the constituents at Madras and apart from that since the Registered Office of the Respondent / Plaintiff is situated at Madras, and therefore the suit filed by the Respondent / Plaintiff on the file of the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is maintainable in law.

8. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff submits that the Principle of dominus litus is limited to the cause of action coming under Section 15 to 18 of the Civil Procedure Code and it has no application where Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be invoked and in reality the Respondent / Plaintiff has to file the suit in accordance with the ingredien