JUDGMENT : B.P. Jha, J. The defendant first party preferred a civil revision petition against an order dated 26th February, 1980. By this order the Court below held that the Motihari Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. The plaintiffs are resident of Motihari. The defendant first party is residing at Samastipur. The point for consideration is whether the Samastipur Court has jurisdiction or the Motihari Court has jurisdiction in respect of the suit. The parties are admittedly bound by term No. 12 of the letter of appointment that disputes arising out of this appointment shall be tried by the Samastipur court only. The court below held that the Motihari court had also jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Motihari. 3. It is an admitted position that both the Samastipur court as well as the Motihari court have jurisdiction to try the suit. By Clause 12 of the agreement, the suit between the parties can be filed at Samastipur only. The simple question is, whether the trial of the suit at Motihari is barred by Clause 12 of the letter of appointment or not? In my opinion, by virtue of Clause 12, the Samastipur court only has jurisdiction and not the Motihari court. 4. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh V. Messrs Gammon (India) Limited In that case also an identical point arose for consideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that where two courts have jurisdiction to try a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court further held that such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. It is an admitted position that both the courts have jurisdiction to try the suit, namely, the Samastipur court and the Motihari Court, but, by virtue of Clause 12 of the letter of appointment the suit can only be filed at Samastipur court. I, therefore, hold that Motihari court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and I direct the Motihari court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs so that they may file it in Samastipur court. 5. I, therefore, hold that Motihari court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and I direct the Motihari court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs so that they may file it in Samastipur court. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court is set aside. The parties shall bear their own cost. Application allowed.