IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint – General principle that suit may be filed at any place where a substantial part of cause of action arises would stand eclipsed in a case where parties have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction at a place of express agreement.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party through video conference.

I.A. No. 1 of 2020

2. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present civil revision application. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the main reason for delay is that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before this Court in Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 256 of 2019 filed on 30.01.2019 and disposed of on 25.02.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party appears and states that he has no serious objection if the delay is condoned and the matter is disposed of on merits.

4. Having regard to the reasons stated in the limitation petition, the same stands allowed and the delay in filing the present civil revision application is hereby condoned.

C.R. No. 23 of 2020

5. The present civil revision petition has been filed “for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2018, passed by the court of Subordinate Judge-XII, Patna, in Title Suit No. 212 of 2017, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with the Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for the brevity “the Code”) was rejected, wherein, the prayer made by the petitioner that the plaint of the Opposite party may be rejected because it suffer from the Jurisdiction error; and further pray to set aside the entire further proceeding of this Title Suit No. 212 of 2017".

6. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner Bank are that the opposite party was appointed in terms of its letter dated 24.07.2002 on the post of Executive-Transaction Banking Group (Operation) in the HDFC Bank Ltd., Wholesale Banking Operations, pursuant to which, the opposite party joined Wholesale Banking, Exhibition Road, Patna. In due course, the opposite party came to be terminated from his service by letter dated 28.06.2016 issued by the petitioner HDFC Bank Ltd., Human Resources, Mumbai, which was the subject matter of Title Suit No. 212 of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party at Patna. Admittedly, the letter of appointment and the letter of termination were issued by the Mumbai office of the petitioner Bank which were served on the opposite party at Patna. In the appointment letter dated 24.07.2002 (Annexure-1), there were clear stipulations, inter alia, as follows-

“Probationary Period:

You will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of your employment. Subject to satisfactory performance during the probationary period you will be confirmed in the services of the Bank. During probationary period either party may terminate the services by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof at the bank’s discretion. However, after confirmation either party will be required to give three months notice or salary in lieu of notice at the bank’s discretion.

xxx xxx xxx

The terms and conditions set out in this letter of appointment constitute service conditions applicable to your employment in the Bank and with regard to any dispute arising thereof, the Bombay Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction.”

7. Mr. Girijish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank submits that the learned court below has erred in law in rejecting its petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed in Title Suit No. 212 of 2017 on the ground that a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. In so doing, the learned court below has failed to appreciate that its jurisdiction was barred in view of the mutually agreed covenant restricting the jurisdiction exclusively to the Courts at Bombay (now Mumbai). In this regard, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swastik Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2013) 9 SCC 32.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party appears and has been heard. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality, inasmuch as a part o