The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties can, by agreement, exclude the jurisdiction of one Court and the suit would lie in the Court to be agreed upon by the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CM-22011-CII-2018

Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record photocopies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and Annexures P-9 to P-11 and certified copies of Annexures P-6 to P-8 and for exempting the petitioner from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and P-9 to P-11.

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-1 to P-11 are taken on record.

Main case

1. The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the application filed by the present petitioner-defendant for rejection/return of the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the record and from the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib, directing the petitioner-defendant to replace the steam boiler with the new boiler or to refund a sum of Rs.20,13,800/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization. It was the case of the respondent-plaintiff that it was having a physical refinery under the name and style of Ekam Agro Private Limited. It had agreed on the quotations received from the petitioner-defendant on 03.06.2014 vide which the petitioner-defendant had agreed to install and provide all types of services with regard to steam boilers. 12 months comprehensive warranty for all equipments and 18 months warranty for valve and feed pump and other material specifically mentioned in their quotation had been agreed upon. The petitioner-defendant had also agreed to deliver the boiler till 31.08.2014. Agreeing upon their quotations, the respondent-plaintiff allotted a tender to the petitioner-defendant on 03.06.2014 itself. It was settled that Rs.5,00,000/- would be given in advance and Rs.7,00,000/- would be paid at the time of delivery of the shell and membrane. Further a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of the balance material and Rs.6,00,000/- was settled to be paid at the time of PDC. It was averred that the respondent-plaintiff was not acting as per quotations and was prolonging the delivery from 31.08.2014 to 15.11.2014. Certain other averments were also made.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application Under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-6) was filed by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of the plaint or for treating the said application for return of the plaint. It was averred in the application that the quotations supplied by the petitioner-defendant were confirmed by the respondent-plaintiff at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It was further averred that the goods had been supplied from Mandi Gobindgarh. The part payments were received through RTGS at Mandi Gobindgarh and the remaining amount was also to be received at Mandi Gobindgarh within the territorial jurisdiction of Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib. It was averred that the present case fell under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) as in the entire plaint there was no reference of the written agreement entered into between the parties but it had been simply mentioned that quotations had been received. Reliance was placed upon the provisions of Sections 16 and 20 C.P.C. Certain judgments were also referred to and it was averred that the plaint was liable to be rejected and in the alternative the same was liable to be returned to present the same before the competent Courts at Amloh.

4. The said application was opposed by way of a reply dated 17.03.2018 (Annexure P-7). A preliminary objection was raised that the application had been filed only with a view to prolong the proceedings. It was averred that the respondent-plaintiff had received the quotations at Sri Muktsar Sahib.