JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — The aforesaid two Civil Revision peti¬tions have been filed against identical orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela on 10.4.2003 in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2002 and Civil Suit No. 115 of 2002 respectively. Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2002 and in Civil Suit No. 115 of 2002 are opposite party members respectively in Civil Revision Petition No. 222 of 2003 and 225 of 2003. The claim advanced by both the plaintiffs in their separate suits against the defendants/petitioners being on the self-same cause of ac¬tion, a common argument was advanced by the parties while arguing on the civil revisions at the stage of admission. Therefore, this common judgment shall abide the result in both the civil revi¬sions.

2. At the time of argument, petitioners has produced xerox copies of the plaints in the each of the Civil Suits (described as Money Suit). Learned counsel for the opposite party also produced for perusal the xerox copy of the Instructions to Ten¬ders. Correctness of the said documents being conceded by the rival parties, they were accepted for perusal and therefore, the lower Court records of the civil Suits were not called for.

3. Petitioner is a Government of Orissa undertakings and the opposite parties are the Private Contractors undertakings contract works. A Tender was floated on 6.3.1999, vide Tender Call Notice No. 13872,inviting offers form intending Contractors relating to construction of Lift Irrigation Project at Arba Jharabahal in the district of Sundargarh. According to the stipu¬lations in Clause-12 of that Tender, along with the Tender paper, Contractors applying for the job were to deposit Earnest Money amounting to 1% of the quoted value for the particular work. While mentioning about the method in which and the manner in which such Earnest Money was to be deposited, in Clause 12 (3) of that Tender it was stated that, “The earnest money deposit of unsuccessful tenders will be returned within 90 days from the date of opening of tender.” After opening of the tenders since the contract was not given to any of the plaintiffs in the afore¬said two suits, therefore, in accordance with the above quoted Clause 12(2) of the Tender the Earnest Money Deposit (in short, ‘E.M.D’) was to be refunded. In that respect, when the defendant/petitioner delayed the matter and subsequently made part payments, after due legal notice each of the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suits claiming for refund of the E.M.D. money along with damages. Both the suits were filed at Rourkela. After re¬ceipt of the summons, petitioner entered appearance in both the suits and filed application purporting to be under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘C.P.C.’) on the ground that the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the stipulation in Clause 26 of the Terms of the Tenders. That terms read as hereunder :

“Any dispute as regards to the contract of this tender, the decisions of the Managing Director, Orissa Agro Industries Corpo¬ration Ltd., shall be final, conclusive and binding on both the parties. Suits if any arising out of this contract shall be filed by either party in Court of law situated in Bhubaneswar and/or Cuttack in the State of Orissa”.

4. In paragraph-14 of the plaint, in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2002, plaintiff/opposite party has stated that, “That the cause of action for this Court suit arises at Rourkela within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on 31.10.2001.......”

Similarly, in paragraph-11 of the plaint,in Civil Suit No. 115 of 2002, plaintiff has stated that, “Cause of action for this suit arose at Rourkela within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on 14.02.2002.......”

5. After hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge with due reference to the relevant averments in the plaint is and the above quoted condition No. 26, in the Tender recorded the finding that since the p