ORDER Naik, J.- I, The plaintiff-applicant, on 24-3-1964, filed a civil suit against the defendant non-applicant in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Murwara, for the recovery of Rs. 2,036.14 p. due on contracts between the parties dated 14-1-1961, 1-2-1961 and 13-2-1961. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the Court at Murwara had no jurisdiction to try it as the parties had agreed that all disputes arising under the said contracts were to be settled within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Calcutta 2. The question of jurisdiction of the Murwara Court was tried as a preliminary issue, and the trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly it returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. 3. In the civil revision, which has been filed by the plaintiff-applicant, it is contended that the Courts below have misconstrued the contacts and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction to try the suit which they undoubtedly possessed. 4. The contracts in question were entered into between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant company through M/s Madhoprasad Liladhar, Dhankutti, Kanpur, on the other hand the latter acting as the brokers of the defendant Company. The contracts were confirmed by the defendant Company on 14-1-1961, 1-2-1961 and 13-2-1961 by letters of those dates. These letters recite that the contracts were subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein, and though these terms and conditions have been elaborately detailed, there is no terms therein that all disputes arising out of the contracts shall be subject to Calcutta jurisdiction. The Courts below have, however, inferred this stipulation from the fact that all these letters begin with a heading 'Subject to Calcutta jurisdiction', which has been printed in these letter heads above the name and address of the defendant Company. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether such a term in the aforesaid contracts between the parties can be inferred under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether such a term in the aforesaid contracts between the parties can be inferred under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of a civil Court is not to be readily inferred; and though it is permissible for the parties to a contract to agree to have all their disputes arising under the contract adjudicated upon by one of the Courts having jurisdiction (where more than one Court is competent to try them), it is a question of fact in each case whether the parties to the contract had so stipulated. 6. In S. Manuel Raj and Co. Vs. J. Manilal and Co. AIR 1963 Gujurat 148 relied on by the learned counsel for the non-applicant, the printed order form of the defendant which formed the contract between the parties, contained the words 'Subject to Madras Jurisdiction' in bold types and underlined and as the order form was signed by the plaintiff and "then sent to the defendant, it was held that it must be assumed that the plaintiff had agreed that Madras was the place for the settlement of the disputes. It was further observed that the aforesaid words formed a term in the contract and if the plaintiff had not agreed to them, he could easily have struck them off. It was also observed that in the commercial practice of India the object of printing such words if, a contract was to exclude the jurisdiction of other Courts and to give sole jurisdiction to one Court. On the other hand, in M/s Patel Bros. Vs. M/s Vadilal AIR 1959 Mad. 227 on which reliance was placed by the other party, it was held that ouster of jurisdiction of a Court to which a person is entitled to resort to under the Civil Procedure Code or any other statute cannot be a matter of assumption or presumption but one to be proved by express words contained in the contract or at least by necessary or inevitable implication. It was further held that that test was not satisfied in the case. It was further held that that test was not satisfied in the case. In this case the words 'Subject to Bombay jurisdiction' were printed at the top of the contrast form and were underlined; but the document further recited that the goods were sold on conditions mentioned over-leaf and these conditions, it appears, did not repeat the words that the contract was subject to Bombay jurisdiction only. Consequently, Hoosen Kasam Dada (India). Ltd. Vs. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1954 Mad. 845 and K. Kaliappa Chettiar and Sons Vs. Currimbhoy Laljee Sajun and Co. AIR 1954 Trav. Co. 461 were distinguished, in both of which there was an express stipulation that of the two Courts competent to try the disputes one of such Courts alone shall have jurisdiction. Relying on an unreported case of the Court, it was held that the mere printing of the words 'Subject to Bombay Jurisdiction' was not sufficient to constitute a contracting out of the jurisdiction of the Madras Court. 7. In the instant case, the words 'Subject to Calcutta Jurisdiction' are not in bold types nor underlined. They occur not in the documents of the plaintiff" but in the confirmatory letters of the defendant after the contracts had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant company through M/s Madho Prasad Liladhar who were acting as brokers of the defendant Company. Then again, not only the terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the confirmatory letters do not contain any stipulation excluding the jurisdiction of the Katni Courts but that the letters of the plaintiff written to the defendant on 1-2-1961, 5-3-1961, 17-3-1961 and 27-3-1961, which were also relevant for construing the contracts in question, contained the words 'Subject to Katni jurisdiction' which were underlined in print. It is further significant that the letters of the brokers contained no stipulation with regard to the place of suing. Considering all these circumstances, I cannot say that the defendant has been able to establish that the parties to the contracts had unequivocally agreed to settle all their disputes in the Courts at Calcutta alone. The Civil Courts at Katni, where part of the cause of action undoubtedly arose, had jurisdiction to try the suit and in refusing so to try it, it had declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The Civil Courts at Katni, where part of the cause of action undoubtedly arose, had jurisdiction to try the suit and in refusing so to try it, it had declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The orders of the Courts below are, therefore, hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for being further proceeded with in accordance with law. The revision is allowed with costs. Counsel's fees Rs.100.