JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—The present suit has been filed by Mohan Meakin Limited, Solan Brewery, through Shri H. N. Handa, Secretary and Principal Officer of the said Company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (I. M F. L.), Beer etc It has various Units and sale depots all over India and its registered office is at Solan Brewery, District Solan (HP), 2. The suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,17,134 30 P. from M/s Rajmat Liquors Pvt. Ltd , which is, as pleaded in the plaint, a Private Limited Company having its registered office at Shop No. 11, Ground Floor A-Monalisa St. John Baptist Road, Baodra (W) Bombay (Mumbai). The said defendant-company is stated to be engaged in the business of purchase and sale of IMFL and beer. 3. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the defendant had been purchasing IMFL and beer manufactured by the plaintiff-company from the latters wholesale depot at Mumbai, on credit, from a long time. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it has a current, mutual and running account of the defendant in the books maintained during the regular course of business in which the defendant had been making purchases on various dates upto 27-1-1988 and made payments towards these purchases from time to time which were adjusted in the account of the defendant. As indicated in the statement of account, last entry being that of 12-2-1988. It has further been pleaded that the defendants were also given a credit of Rs.52,800 on 22-12-1990 towards their claim of defective stock. In this connection, the defendant through its Manager Major G. L. Khote (Retd.) also acknowledged and confirmed the debit balance on 22-12-1990. 4. It is the plaintiffs case that as per the books of account, a sum of Rs.3,98,709.35 P. was due to it as being outstanding on 31-3 1988 after adjusting the amounts paid by the defendants. As mentioned above, further a credit of Rs 52,800 was also given by the plaintiff to the defendants on 22-12-1990, on account of its claim in respect of defective stock Thus, after taking into account this credit, an amount of Rs. As mentioned above, further a credit of Rs 52,800 was also given by the plaintiff to the defendants on 22-12-1990, on account of its claim in respect of defective stock Thus, after taking into account this credit, an amount of Rs. 3,45,909 35 P, was due to the plaintiff from the defendant as on 22-12-1990.Repeated demands had been made to the defendant for paying the balance amount through requests and notices, particularly dated21-6-1988 and 28-^1990. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff company that the defendant-company has acknowledged and confirmed the debit balance referred to above, as being outstanding on 22-12-1990 as per the statement of account. After adding interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-4-1988 to 31-12-1990 on the principal amount of Rs 3,45,909.35, which the plaintiff stiltedly is entitled to as per the condition of sale as also under customs and usages as well as the agreement and demand made in the notices aforementioned, the total sum and amount comes to Rs. 5,17,134.30 (after adding a sum of Rs. 1.71 224.95 as interest at the rate of 18% to the principal amount). Hence the present suit. 5. A perusal of the record shows that various attempts were made to effect service on the defendant through the normal process as well as by registered A.D. but the same proved futile, Ultimately, substituted service was effected on the defendant by publication of the notice in the newspaper "Indian Express Bombay Edition. Since none had put in appearance on its behalf, exparte proceedings had been taken against the defendant. 6. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined PW 1 Shri H. N. Handa, Secretary, Mohan Meakin Limited, Solan. He has stated that he is Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff-company, copy of the same has been placed on the record as Ex. P-l, on the basis of the original brought by him. It authorised him to file suits, sign plaint and file other miscellaneous applications on behalf of the plaintiff-company. 7. PW I has stated that the defendant-company had been buying beer and IMFL from the plaintiff through its Mumbai Depot from 1986 to 1988. It did not make payments for such purchases to the Mumbai Depot of the plaintiff-company after 22-12-1990 when it was given a credit of Rs. 7. PW I has stated that the defendant-company had been buying beer and IMFL from the plaintiff through its Mumbai Depot from 1986 to 1988. It did not make payments for such purchases to the Mumbai Depot of the plaintiff-company after 22-12-1990 when it was given a credit of Rs. 52,800, PW 1 has further stated that the Manager of the defendant-company had acknowledged its liability to the extent of the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,909.35, Statement of account in this behalf has been admitted into evidence as Ex. P-2 in the course of deposition of this witness. The acknowledgement by the Manager of the defendant-Company has been encircled by the letter A’ in the said statement of account vide Ex. P-2. He has also stated that the accounts of the plaintiff are being maintained in the regular course of business and after taking into consideration the credit amount of Rs. 52,800 a sum of Rs. 3,45,909.35 P. becomes due from the defendant as on 22-12-1990. 8. According to PW 1 notice was sent by the Law Officer of the plaintiff-company to the defendant-company, demanding the outstanding amount, copy of the same is Ex. P-3 and, as per the statement of PW 1the original notice vide Ex. P-3 was issued under his supervision and instructions. He has identified the signatures of the Law Officer concerned, i. e , Shri S. K. Kochhar. Another notice dated 28-8-1990 was also sent statedly by this witness, copy of which is Ex. P-4 and he has identified his signatures on it. Despite these two notices, the defendant did not care to pay the amount. 9. The testimony of PW 1 discloses that the sales of liquor and beer by the Mumbai depot of the company were made by the defendant through invoices and excise permits issued by the Excise Department, and no payments were made on the presentation of the bills. He has claimed that the plaintiff-company is entitled to 18% per annum interest on the outstanding amount due from the defendant, and this rate of interest is derived from the invoices issued to the defendant from time to time. PW 1 has gone on to state that sales and transactions are supposed to be made at the registered office of the plaintiff-company at Solan Brewery and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. PW 1 has gone on to state that sales and transactions are supposed to be made at the registered office of the plaintiff-company at Solan Brewery and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. It has also been indicated by PW 1 that it is further printed on the invoice stating therein the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court at Himachal Pradesh. 10. PW 2 R. K. Mittal, who is posted as Accountant at the office of the plaintiff-Company at Solan has deposed that he has been working as such since 1965.According to him, he deals with the matter of outstanding amounts against the supplies made to various liquor contractors/ companies etc. In this connection he has stated that an amount of Rs. 3,45,909.30 P. is outstanding towards the defendant on account of supplies of IMFL and beer, PW 2 has produced account books and has stated that the defendant made purchases from 1-4-1986 to 27-1-1988 Certain payments were made by the defendant which have been credited to their account in the regular course of business. They had mutual and running current account for the plaintiff-company. An amount of Rs 3 45 909 35 P is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff after adjusting the credit amount of Rs. 52,800. He has produced statement of account Ex P 5 which according to him is correct, as per the original books of account regularly maintained by the plaintiff company In the regular course of its business. As per the version of PW 2, the defendants Manager had confirmed the balance which was outstanding on 22-12-1990 and this confirmation by way of acknowledgement is shown by letter A, which has been encircled in the statement of account Ex. P-2. 11. PW 2 has deposed that the sales of liquor, beer etc. are effected through invoices issued by the plaintiff-company on the basis of permits issued by the Excise authorities. During the course of his statement carbon copies of the invoices, 135 in number, which have been signed by the representative of the defendant-company have been exhibited vide Exts. P-4 to P-141.Ex P-142 to P-156 are debit notes while the credit note is ex. Jr-157. 12. During the course of his statement carbon copies of the invoices, 135 in number, which have been signed by the representative of the defendant-company have been exhibited vide Exts. P-4 to P-141.Ex P-142 to P-156 are debit notes while the credit note is ex. Jr-157. 12. The above narrated facts discussed in detail, pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the evidence led by it in support of its case, remains un-rebutted, therefore, ordinarily, the same have to be accepted as being true and correct. The plaintiff being a renowned liquor and beer manufacturing company, there are no reasons or circumstances on the record to doubt the veracity of its case, as pleaded and proved through oral and documentary evidence referred to above. It would be but natural for the plaintiff-company to supply stocks of IMFL and beer to the various units contractors and companies all over India including Murabai through its respective sale depots. Thus, the plaintiff has fully succeeded In establishing and proving its claim against the defendant. 13. Before Parting with this Judgment it needs to be stressed that though the stocks of liquor and beer were supplied from the sales depot of the plaintiff at Mumbai to the defendant, which is also based there from time to time, the suit has been filed in this Court, which is at Himachal Pradesh. However, in this connection, a perusal of the various invoices placed on record vide Exts, P-6 to P-141 indicates that it has been expressly stipulated that it has been agreed between the seller and the purchase? (plaintiff and defendant, respectively) that, in the event of any dispute arising out of the contract between the two parties, only the Courts in Himachal Pradesh shall have the jurisdiction to settle the same Apart from this clear and specific stipulation in the contract between the two parties, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has cited a Single Bench decision of this Court reported as Inder Singh Dhir v. M/s Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd Solan, ILR (Himachal Series) (1977) 27;.In the case also the plaintiff herein was a party and it was a suit for recovery of price of goods purchased and delivered at Patiala, although the plaintiff has its registered office at Solan in Himachal Pradesh However therein the agreement provided (hat the Courts in Himachal Pradesh alone would have the jurisdiction to try suits. It was held that Court at Solan and not at Patiala was the proper Court to try the suit. This further clinches the issue that it is only the Court having the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction (which, in the present case, is this Court) in Himachal Pradesh which can try and decide the present suit, and impliedly the jurisdiction of Court/ Courts at Mumbai is barred. 14. Moreover, from the facis pleaded and proved in the present case, it is manifest that the suit is within time from the date the cause of action arose to the plaintiff 15. For the reasons recorded above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds. The same is accordingly decreed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,17,134 30 P. alongwith costs of the suit. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount here above, from the date of institution of the present suit till the whole amount is finally realised from the defendant. Decree be prepared. Suit succeeded.