ORDER :

1. ‘What is the practice and procedure to be adopted by the trial Court while dealing with a plea to frame and decide a preliminary issue?’

2. This question needs to be answered in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. In turn, the scope and import of certain provisions of Order 14 CPC also fall for consideration.

3. C.O.S.No.12 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff company for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,44,02,487.61 Ps. with future interest at 24% per annum along with costs. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff company was that it had placed a purchase order on 05.10.2011 upon the respondents-defendants for supply of plant and machinery for extracting pyrolysis oil on a turn-key basis. According to the petitioner-plaintiff company, the understanding between the parties was that payment would be subject to the supplied product meeting the description and conditions assured by the respondents-defendants and in the event it failed to do so, the respondents-defendants were to refund the price amount along with expenses and losses. Alleging so, this suit was filed in April, 2016 and was numbered as O.S.No.472 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Miyapur. It was then transferred and re-numbered as C.O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ( for brevity, ‘the Commercial Court’).

4. While so, the respondents-defendants filed I.A.No.89 of 2018 in the said suit under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction before proceeding with the suit. They prayed for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. This I.A. was filed on 23.12.2016. Pertinent to note, the respondents-defendants did not file their written statement(s) in the suit before filing the subject I.A.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the second respondent-second defendant, speaking on behalf of the respondents-defendants, stated as follows: Pursuant to the interest expressed by the petitioner-plaintiff company, the respondents-defendants sent quotation dated 17.03.2011 for supply of the subject machinery to the petitioner-plaintiff company. Clause 12 thereof made it clear that the contract would be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in the city of Navi Mumbai. The said document was an admitted one and had been mentioned at Sl.No.27 of the list of the documents filed by the petitioner-plaintiff company itself. The quotation dated 17.03.2011 was accepted by the petitioner-plaintiff company by making part-payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.10.2011. However, with a view to institute a false suit, the petitioner-plaintiff company fabricated the purchase order dated 05.10.2011. The petitioner-plaintiff company was silent as to the date and mode of dispatch of the purchase order and no details were provided as to how it was sent to the respondents-defendants. Further, no acknowledgment from the respondents-defendants was produced in relation thereto. The subsequent documents and e-mails filed by the petitioner-plaintiff company correlated to the quotation dated 17.03.2011 and not the false and fabricated purchase order dated 05.10.2011. No formal agreement was ever entered into between the parties and they continued to be governed by the terms of the quotation dated 17.03.2011. As their contractual relationship arose out of the quotation dated 17.03.2011, wherein they agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Navi Mumbai, the respondents defendants asserted that the preliminary issue of jurisdiction had to be decided before proceeding with the suit.

6. The Managing Director of the petitioner-plaintiff company filed a counter-affidavit opposing this plea. Therein he stated that the I.A. was filed as a delaying tactic as the time for filing written statements had lapsed. Reference was made to the plaint aver