An agreement between parties ousting the jurisdiction of a court is not valid unless it is signed by both parties and is clear and unambiguous.

S. ACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant has preferred this revision against the order passed by the subordinate Judge, Keonjhar on 21-1-78 in Money Suit No. 1 of 1975.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a unit of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, ltd. The defendant-firm carries on business in Calcutta. The plaintiff's suit, in short, is for realisation of certain amount of money claimed on the basis of the balance dues on the defendant on account of supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant and on account of loss sustained by the plaintiff due to payment of demurrage and other amounts due to the default of the defendants as specified in the plaint. The defendant while denying the plaintiff's claim has alleged that the court at Keonjhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant to the effect that ell disputes between the parties arising out of the said contract would be settled in Calcutta or by the courts in Calcutta.

( 3 ) AFTER the filing of the written statement and framing of the issues in the suit, on the petition of the defendant, the court below took up for decision the issue no. 2 namely: "has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit?" and by the impugned order it has arrived at the finding that the court at Keonjhar has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. The defendant has preferred this Civil Revision against the said order.

( 4 ) EXT. C dated 1-II-71 is the purchase order sent by the defendant to the plaintiff by which the defendant placed orders with the plaintiff for supplying certain varieties of pig iron from its concern at Barbil in the Keonjhar District to the defendant in Calcutta. The plaintiff on receipt of Ext. C sent its work order ext. A dated 2-11-71 to the defendant. The supply of pig Iron by the plaintiff from. Barbil to the defendant In Calcutta started from 13-11-71, The above facts and the finding of the court below that the cause of action for the suit arose at Barbil within the jurisdiction of the Keonjhar Civil Court are not challenged in this revision.

( 5 ) IN view of the admitted fact that the defendant resides and carries on business in Calcutta and the unchallenged finding that the cause of action for the suit arose in Barbil within the jurisdiction of the Keonjhar Civil Court, the courts in Calcutta as well as those in Keonjhar have jurisdiction to try the suit. It is well settled that where two courts or more have jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy (AIR 1971 SC 740); (1978) 46 Cut LT 89 : (AIR 1978 orissa 167); and AIR 1979 Mad 16 and 21 ). According to the defendant, petitioner herein, both the parties had agreed that the jurisdiction for determination of any dispute arising out of the contract between the parties would be only in Calcutta whereas the plaintiff contends that there was no such contract of agreement between them.

( 6 ) THE defendant in support of his assertion to the above effect depends only on exts. C and B. At the top of Ext. C, the purchase order dated 1-11-71, it is printed "all subject to Calcutta jurisdiction. " The purchase order Ss typed in defendant's own letterhead and issued by the defendant, and it has not been signed by the plaintiff. By the mere recital of the said words at the top of Ext. C and by sending the same to the plaintiff it cannot be said that the plaintiff agreed to confine settlement and adjudication of all disputes between the parties relating to the contract only at one place i. e. in Calcutta or only in the courts at Calcutta and nowhere else. Ouster of court's jurisdiction, should not be easily construed and cannot be assumed or presumed very easily. Ouster of jurisdiction must be proved by express wor