ORDER Henderson, J. - This is a rule obtained by the defendants calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the plaint should not be returned for presentation in the proper Court. The suit is to recover damages in connection with a contract for the supply of shoes. Both the Munsif at Dacca and the Presidency Small Cause Court have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention of the petitioners is that the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Dacca has been taken away by a clause in the contract which is in the following terms: "Any legal action resulting from this contract will be taken in the Courts of Calcutta." 2. There was a dispute as to the exact meaning of this clause. It was suggested by the plaintiff that the intention merely was to confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta Courts. The learned Munsif was obviously correct in his interpretation. The jurisdiction is already in the Calcutta Courts and the only possible meaning is that the plaintiff should be prohibited from instituting a suit in any other Court. The question whether such an agreement can be enforced has led to a divergence of judicial opinion. It really depends upon the meaning to be attached to the word "absolutely" in S. 28, Contract Act. If that word were not there, the petitioners would have no case. The same result will follow, if it is to be given the narrower of the two possible interpretations. These opposite points of view are exemplified in A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 1145 Achratlal Kesavlal Mehta and Co., by Proprietor Achratlal and Kesavlal Vs. Vijayam and Co., AIR 1925 Mad 1145 , which is in favour of the petitioners and in the case in A. I. R. 1923 Lah. 425 Kidri Prasad v. K. R. Khosala ('23) 10 A. I. R. 1923 Lah. 425 : 75 I. C. 590, which is in favour of the opposite party. 3. The question has recently been considered in two decisions of this Court. In 49 C. W. N. 58 Ramnicklal Chhaganlal v. Vivekanand Mills Co. Ltd. ('45) 49 C. W. N. 58, Gentle J. held that, although the agreement was not void it could not have the effect of taking the jurisdiction away from a Court possessing it under the provisions of the law. In 49 C. W. N. 58 Ramnicklal Chhaganlal v. Vivekanand Mills Co. Ltd. ('45) 49 C. W. N. 58, Gentle J. held that, although the agreement was not void it could not have the effect of taking the jurisdiction away from a Court possessing it under the provisions of the law. The other decision is in 49 C. W. N. 123 Dhanmal Marwari v. Janakidas Baijnath ('45) 49 C. W. N. 123. The actual point was whether jurisdiction could be conferred by an agreement. On the present point Biswas J. without definitely deciding it, was inclined to the view that such an agreement is not void. Latifur Rahman J. was definitely of that opinion. I should myself feel inclined to say that the effect of the agreement is to prevent the plaintiff absolutely from filing a suit in Dacca, which he has a right to do, and it is, therefore, within the mischief of S. 28, Contract Act. But I am definitely of opinion that, even if the agreement was not void, it is putting the matter too high to say that it has taken away the jurisdiction from the Court at Dacca. No doubt it is a matter of great inconvenience for a firm in the position of the petitioners to send its books and servants to various Courts all over the provinces. The fact that the plaintiff willingly made this agreement might certainly afford a good ground for transfer. That is quite another thing from saying that the Munsif at Dacca has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The rule must accordingly be discharged. The costs of the rule will be costs in the suit, hearing fee one gold mohur.