Jurisdiction clauses in contracts do not oust local courts if business activities affecting local parties are involved, and a plaint cannot be dismissed solely against some defendants if others remain.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. H. Goel, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

2. Present writ petition is directed assailing the order dated 6^th November 2024 of learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda passed in Civil Revision No.2 of 2024 and the order dated 2^nd December 2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Jharsuguda in Civil Suit No.154 of 2013, along with further direction to allow the application of the Petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to reject the plaint in C.S. No.154 of 2013.

3. Present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 filed Civil Suit No.154 of 2013 in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jharsuguda praying for a decree of permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from carrying out actions undermining and in gross violation of the business arrangement between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs. For better appreciation, the detailed prayer of the Plaintiffs is re-produced below:-

"(a) Declare the actions of the Defendant No.1 in promoting the Defendant No. 3 in selling their products in Indian Market, are illegal, wrongful, malafide and in gross violation of the terms of business arrangements and commitments between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs that have been existing and continuing for over 35 years;

(b) Decree of permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from carrying out actions which undermine, are contrary to or in gross violation of the business arrangements and commitments between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs that have been existing and continuing for over 35 years;

(c) Let a direction be passed upon the Defendant No. 1 to honor and abide by its commitments and business arrangements with the Plaintiffs that have been existing and continuing for over 35 years and further that all sale and supply of the Products by the Defendant No.1 in India should be carried out exclusively through its business arrangement and commitments with the Plaintiffs;

(d) Let a direction be passed upon the Defendant No.1 to continue to supply to the Plaintiffs, the Products that are being supplied by the Defendant No.1 under the existing business arrangements and commitments between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff without and exception or disruption or stoppage of such supplies;

(e) A decree of permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from selling or distributing the products in India which are similar to and/or competing with the Products being marketed and distributed in India under the business arrangements and commitments between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs that have been existing and continuing for over 35 years;

(f) A decree of permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing, circulating or making any disparaging statement, comment or communication in the Indian market which is harmful and detrimental to the business arrangements and commitments between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff that have been existing and continuing for over 35 years;

(g) Costs of this suit in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants may be decreed, (h) Any other and further reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled under law and equity may also be passed."

4. The Petitioners are Defendants 1 & 2 in the suit, whereas present Opposite Party No.3 is Defendant No.3 in the suit.

5. The substance of contentions of the Plaintiffs in the plaint is that, they are carrying bu