Point of Law :
where two Courts or more have jurisdiction under CPC to try a suit or proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in any one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one Court has jurisdiction, parties by their consent may limit the jurisdiction to one of the two Courts. But by an agreement parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise does not have jurisdiction to deal with a matter

P. KESHAVA RAO, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Questioning dismissal of an application in I.A.No. 495 of 2017 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, the petitioner herein/defendant No.3 filed the present revision petition.

3. The facts in brief are that originally the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2011 (renumbered as COS No.259 of 2017) for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,37,62,520/- against the petitioner herein and two others. It is the case of the first respondent that it entered into agreements with respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the clearing and forwarding agents, who undertook to render services to the first respondent for clearance of imported cargo at Chennai Sea-port, Chennai Airport and Chennai CWC. In the course of business, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have stored 16 nos. of consignments of imported goods belonging to the first respondent in the custom public bonded warehouse belonging to the petitioner. However, on 9.10.2008 at about 1300 hours there was a fire accident leading to damage of 13 consignments leaving 3 consignments intact. Because of the said fire accident, the first respondent sustained loss of Rs.5,93,88,856=06 ps. But, it could recover Rs.4,44,17,990/- (inclusive of 10% incidental charges) towards the value of 9 consignments under insurance coverage from TATA AIG Insurance Company. Thereby, the first respondent incurred loss to the tune of Rs.1,37,62,520/- for the 4 uncovered consignments inclusive of 10% incidental expenses. The petitioner also confirmed the loss of the aforesaid consignments to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through letter dated 18.11.2008. In fact, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were under an obligation to deliver the aforesaid consignments in Hyderabad by arranging appropriate transportation apart from under legal duty to take reasonable and appropriate care of the goods from the time they were imported into Chennai till delivery of the same to the first respondent. The negligence of the petitioner and false declarations given by the 3rd respondent resulted in the aforementioned loss to the first respondent. Therefore, after issuance of legal notice dated 12.09.2009, the first respondent has come up with the above said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,37,62,520/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

4. The petitioner filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the suit and contended inter alia that it had no privity of contract with the first respondent. By way of the agreement, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on any Court to try a dispute. The first respondent has no agreement with the petitioner and the cause of action arose at Chennai and no part of cause of action has arisen in Hyderabad. The petitioner also stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the custom authorities and the Cholamandalam Insurance Company, insurer of the goods, were not made as parties to the suit, apart from other aspects.

5. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.495 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that the present Court where the suit is instituted has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the said application. After hearing, the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the application by orders dated 15.06.2018 holding that the first respondent has an agreement with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and there is a specific clause that the Courts at Hyderabad had got jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court below failed to consider that no part of cause of action arisen against the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction o