JUDGMENT The opposite party has filed a suit in the Court of the SubJrdinate Judge, against the petitioner and others for recovery of Rs. 13,000/-. The petitioner appeared in the suit and raised an objection as to the Jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. In support of the contention the original contract was filed. Clause 13 of the contract, which has been quoted in the order of the court below, reads as follows "Notwithstanding the place, where the work under this contract is to be executed, it is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the city of Bombay and the court of Bombay shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon." On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated the 11th November, 1968, has held that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence the defendant has come up to this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the contract the parties not only fixed the place of suing but also the place of agreement. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Kursela and the work had to be carried in the district of Purnea, and, therefore, the Purnea Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. At the same time he held that the Bombay Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. There is a deeming clause in the aforesaid provision of the contract entered into. According to that, though the contract was entered into at Kursela in the district of Purnea but nonetheless the parties agreed that the contract will be deemed to have been entered into in the city of Bombay. It cannot be said that this kind of contract is not a valid one. If the contract by legal fiction was entered into at Bombay certainly the Bombay Court had , jurisdiction to try the suit, The learned Subordinate Judge has also given effect to this agreement between the parties but in his opinion the Bombay court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the contract entered into between the parties cannot give jurisdiction to Bombay Court to try the suit. It is not possible for me to accept this view. It is not possible for me to accept this view. Even according to the plaintiff, the petitioner has got its business at Bombay and the suit is against the petitioner. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides- "20. Subject to be limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- "(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain or xxx xxx xxx Explanation II-A corporation shall be deemed to carryon business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." In view of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the Bombay Court has got also jurisdiction to try the suit. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Bombay Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit is absolutely wrong. If Bombay Court and Parnea Court both have got jurisdiction to try the suit, there is no dispute before me that the parties can contract that a suit arising out of a particular transaction can be filed at the place where the parties contract. So far this Court is concerned, it has been held in (1) Ajmer Brothers V. Surajmal Naresh Kumar Jain (1967 B. L.J. R. 164) which relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in (2) H. K. Dada India Ltd. V. M. P. S. Mills Co. Ltd. (A.I.R. 1954 Madras 845) wherein it has been held that where there are two competent courts which could deal with the subject matter of litigation it is open to the parties to a contract to agree that dispute in respect thereof should be adjudicated upon by 'One of the two competent courts. The learned Subordinate Judge has been greatly influenced by the decision of the Nagpur High Court in (3) National Petrokum Co. V. Rebello (A.I.R. 1935 Nagpur 48). It may be mentioned here that the Madras High Court, the decision of which was relied upon by this Court in the aforesaid case of Ajmer Brothers, did not accept the view taken by the Nagpur High Court. V. Rebello (A.I.R. 1935 Nagpur 48). It may be mentioned here that the Madras High Court, the decision of which was relied upon by this Court in the aforesaid case of Ajmer Brothers, did not accept the view taken by the Nagpur High Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has failed to notice this fact. On a careful consideration of the law and authorities on the point it must be held that the Purnea Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit and order of the court below is bad in law and must be set aside. 3. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and the order of the court below that it has jurisdiction to try the suit is set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed, therefore, to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before a proper court. Application allowed