##PAGE1##

SARITA RANI

2026.04.28 18:00

I attest to the accuracy

of this document/order

CR No.9461 of 2025 2026:PHHC:064345

5. Upon considera(cid:15)on of the rival submissions, the learned trial

Court dismissed the applica(cid:15)on, holding that the objec(cid:15)on as to jurisdic(cid:15)on

had not been raised at the earliest and stood waived, and further that the

cause of ac(cid:15)on had arisen at Jalandhar, thereby conferring jurisdic(cid:15)on upon

the trial Court.

6. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner has

argued that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the binding nature of the

exclusive jurisdic(cid:15)on clause contained in the employment agreement and

that once par(cid:15)es had agreed to confer jurisdic(cid:15)on upon the Courts at

Mumbai, the plaint ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner and perused the

record, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision pe(cid:15)(cid:15)on.

8. It is an admi(ed posi(cid:15)on that the defendant had already filed

wri(en statement and par(cid:15)cipated in the proceedings before raising the

objec(cid:15)on regarding territorial jurisdic(cid:15)on. The applica(cid:15)on under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC came to be filed at a belated stage when the suit had

substan(cid:15)ally progressed. Even as per the present posi(cid:15)on, evident from

eCourtsServices website, the ma(er is already fixed for rebu(al and final

arguments. In such circumstances, the objec(cid:15)on with regard to territorial

jurisdic(cid:15)on must be deemed to have been waived.

9. It is trite that an objec(cid:15)on as to territorial jurisdic(cid:15)on does not

go to the inherent competence of the Court and is liable to be waived if not

taken at the earliest possible opportunity. The conduct of the defendant in

par(cid:15)cipa(cid:15)ng in the proceedings without demur clearly disen(cid:15)tles him from

raising such objec(cid:15)on at a belated stage, more so when the trial has reached

its concluding phase.

10. Furthermore, the record unequivocally reflects that the plain(cid:15)ff

was working at Jalandhar and his services were terminated there. Thus, a

substan(cid:15)al part of the cause of ac(cid:15)on has arisen within the territorial

SARITA RANI

2026.04.28 18:00

I attest to the accuracy

Page 2 of 3

of this document/order

CR No.9461 of 2025 2026:PHHC:064345

jurisdic(cid:15)on of the trial Court. Once that is so, the Court was fully competent

to entertain and try the suit.

11. The conten(cid:15)on of the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner based upon the exclusive

jurisdic(cid:15)on clause in the employment agreement also does not advance his

case. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that such clauses in

employment contracts cannot be enforced in a manner so as to compel an

employee to li(cid:15)gate at a distant forum, par(cid:15)cularly when the cause of ac(cid:15)on

has arisen at the place where the employee was posted and terminated.

12. It also cannot be lost sight of that the revisional jurisdic(cid:15)on of

this Court is limited in scope. Interference is warranted only where the

impugned order suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity or

jurisdic(cid:15)onal error. The view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible

and legally sustainable view based upon the material available on record. No

such infirmity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this

Court.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the present revision pe(cid:15)(cid:15)on is devoid of merit. The

same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applica(cid:15)ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

April 27, 2026

Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

Whether reportable? Yes/No

SARITA RANI

2026.04.28 18:00

I attest to the accuracy

Page 3 of 3

of this document/order