ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK C.R.P. No.38 of 2023 In the matter of an Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ***

Sushanta Kumar Kabi Aged about 46 years, Son of Sita Nath Kabi Present Address:

HIG-157, Kanan Vihar, Phase-1 Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, Permanent Address:

Son of Sita Nath Kabi Qrs. No.C/10, Tensa P.S.: Lahunipada District: Sundargarh – 770 042.… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

1. AABSyS Information Technology, Registered Office:

At: E-54 & E-54/1, Infocity, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar – 751 024, Odisha, India.

Represented by Mrs. Namita Priya, Aged about 51 years Wife of Dr. Sanjeev Gupta Working at address:

E-54&E-54/1, Infocity Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia Bhubaneswar – 751 024, Odisha, India Working as AGM, Human Resource Department at AABSyS Information Technology Private Limited. … Opposite Party.

(Plaintiff in Court Below)

2. Prasant Kumar Kabi Aged about 42 years, Permanent Address:

Son of Sita Nath Kabi Qrs.No.C/10, Tensa, P.S.: Lahunipada District: Sundargarh – 770 042, Tensa, Odisha, India.

3. IBAK Consultancy Services (OPC) Pvt. Ltd.

Having its Registered Office:

At: HIG-155, 2^nd Floor, Kanan Vihar, Phase-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar – 751 024, Odisha.

At present: Qrs. No.C/10, Tensa P.S.: Lahunipada, District: Sundargarh – 770 042 Tensa, Odisha, India. …Proforma Opposite Parties.

(Defendant No.2&3 in the Court below)

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners : M/s. Pradeep Kumar Mohapatra and Nalini Kanta Sahoo, Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Yasobant Das, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Animesh Singh, Advocate.

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 13.02.2025

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

Assailing Order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.49 of 2022, rejecting petition under Order VII, Rule 11, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking provisions of under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the following prayer(s):

“The petitioner therefore humbly prays that, this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to admit this Revision, issue notice to the opposite parties, call for the lower court records and after hearing the parties, allow this revision by setting aside the impugned Order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar.”

Facts:

2. It is unfurled from the pleadings and documents available on record that the Civil Suit No.49 of 2022 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 against the petitioner-defendant No.1 which is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar (“Commercial Court”, for convenience) wherein the present petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application for rejection of plaint under the provisions as contained under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short) on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit in Bhubaneswar as well as the plaint is barred by other laws.

2.1. The sum and substance of said petition filed to reject plaint in the Civil Suit No.49 of 2022 is that the plaintiff- opposite party No.1 filed the suit against the petitioner- defendant No.1 and others wherein the said plaint did not disclose cause of action for institution of the suit. This apart, the purported agreement as has been mentioned in the subject matter of suit between the plaintiff and the petitioner-defendant No.1 specifically permitted that any dispute between the parties must be raised and the case, if at all, is to be filed before the Court of Cuttack jurisdiction only. Such fact is alleged to have been agreed between the parties. The learned Commercial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same as law specifies that parties are to be bounded by the terms of agreement. Accordingly, it was prayed in the said petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the pl