IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 Date of decision : 10.11.2025 G.S.J. Arvind Limited ...... Petitioner versus M/s. Hindustan Construction Company through its partner-Nirmal Kumar Sharma ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Ms. Chahat, Advocate and Mr. Aamol Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge is to the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 CPC stands rejected.

2. Plaintiff-respondent filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.58,56,914/-. The claim is based upon work order dated 21.01.2012 allotted by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is relying upon the terms and conditions appended along with the work order. The covenant No.20 reads as under:-

“20. This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India. The Courts situated at Ahmedabad have exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of actions, proceedings arising out of this agreement.”

3. Relying upon the same, the defendant contends that the jurisdiction to entertain the suit is vested exclusively with Courts situated at Ahmedabad. Thus, the suit ought not have been instituted before the Civil Court at Hisar.

4. Trial Court disposed off the application filed by the defendant observing as under:-

“Thus as per Section 20 (c) a civil suit can be instituted where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a mixed question of law and fact as to whether the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen in Hisar or not and the same can be decided after adducing of evidence by both the parties only. So, let issue on this point be framed at the time of framing of issues.

The application is accordingly disposed of.”

5. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court contending that once the parties have agreed to bestow exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts situated at Ahmedabad, the plaint instituted at Civil Courts at Hisar, deserves to be returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ahmedabad. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the registered address of the petitioner-defendant and the provisions as contained under Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to submit that the Courts at Ahmedabad would have exclusive jurisdiction in terms of the contract between the parties. Further reliance is being placed upon M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 52, Civil Appeal No.2282 of 2025 titled as ‘Rakesh Kumar Verma vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. decided on 08.04.2025 and Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Naveen Kanwar 2016(2) RCR (Civil) 170.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Jain submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.08.2022, both parties have filed affidavits raising rival stands regarding the place of execution of the work order. In view thereof, the Trial Court rightly disposed off the application holding that the dispute being a matter of evidence, it deserves to be adjudicated by framing issue.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8 The issue regarding freedom available with the contracting parties to bestow exclusive jurisdiction upon one of the Courts having jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 CPC is no more res integra. The same has been elaborately answered by Supreme Court in M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. (supra), observing as under:-

“xx xx xx

30. When it comes to the question of territorial jurisdiction relating to the application under Section 11, besides the above legislative provisions, Section 20 of the Code is relevant. Section 20 of the Code states that subject to the limitations provided in Section 15 to 19, every suit shall be instituted in a Court withi