Judgment :- 1. The defendant in O.S. 369 of 1991 on the file of Sub-Court, Dindigul is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein filed the said suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,850-75 together with interest. The respondents case is that he is running a Xerox and Job Type Centre. The petitioner is a finance company and the respondent had approached the petitioner company for financial assistance for purchase of Nelco Plain Paper Copier for his job work. Both had arrived at an arrangement and the respondent had executed a hire purchase agreement on 5.2.88. Apart from that he also executed a pronote and deposited the title deed of his immovable property with the petitioner. The schedule of repayment is that the respondent has to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly instalments, the first instalment being at Rs. 2,110/- and the remaining instalments at Rs. 1,941/-. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 33,657/- by way of draft, cheques and cash on various dates from 22.3.88 to 5.1.90. Since the machine was under repair, the respondent procured another machine Modi Xerox on 6.3.90. When the respondent was away, the petitioners representatives came to the respondents premises and seized the Modi Xerox, inspite of the respondents objection. On 8.3.90, the respondent contacted the petitioner by phone and offered to remit Rs. 10,000/- and requested him to release the machine seized by the petitioner. As the petitioner agreed for the same, the respondent went to the petitioners office at Coimbatore and remitted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and requested the petitioner to release the machine. The petitioner refused to release the same and informed the respondent that unless he settled the entire account, the machine cannot be given back to him. The respondent again went to the petitioners office on 19.3.90 with money and requested the petitioner to give the account in respect of the balance amount due by him. But the petitioner refused to give the accounts and directed the respondent to remit Rs. 32,500/- in full settlement of the claim. Though the amount claimed by the petitioner is much higher, having no other option, the respondent has remitted the amount of Rs. 32,500/-. As per the respondent, he has over paid the petitioner and according to the particulars given in the claim petition, the respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 16,850-75. Though the amount claimed by the petitioner is much higher, having no other option, the respondent has remitted the amount of Rs. 32,500/-. As per the respondent, he has over paid the petitioner and according to the particulars given in the claim petition, the respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 16,850-75. 2. The petitioner disputed the claim of the respondent by filing the written statement and also has raised the question of jurisdiction contending that as per the hire purchase agreement, the parties have agreed that only the Court at Coimbatore has jurisdiction and as such the suit filed at Dindigul is not maintainable. 3. The lower court has rejected the plea of the petitioner with regard to the exclusion of jurisdiction of Dindigul Court. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the said order. 4. The respondent had stated in his plaint the cause of action arises on the date of the hire purchase agreement i.e., on 5.2.88 at Coimbatore. He has further stated that the cause of action arises on 5.3.90 on which date the Modi Xerox machine had been seized from his premises instead of the Nelco Plain Paper Copier, which is the subject matter of the lease agreement. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the clause 33-0 of the lease agreement, the parties had agreed that the Coimbatore court alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter, claim or dispute arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement. Clause 33-0 of the lease agreement runs as follows:— “As a part of the cause of action arises in Coimbatore it is agreed between the parties that Coimbatore Court alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter, claim, dispute arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement”. So far as this contention is concerned, it is valid in view of the c reported in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd., v. V.A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989-1-L.W. 449= AIR 1989 SC 1239 ) in which it has been held as follows:— “From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like ‘alone’, ‘only’, ‘exclusive’, and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim ‘ expressiunius est exclusio alterius ’ — “expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contact an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred It has therefore to He properly construed”. In the judgment reported in Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1996-1-L.W. 231= AIR 1995 SC 1766 ) it has been held as follows:— “So, normally that Court also would have jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. But it will be subject to the terms of the contract between the parties. In this case, Clause (21) reads thus: “This work order is issued subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court situated in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. Any legal proceeding will, therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the above Court only”. A leading of this clause would clearly indicate that the work order issued by the appellant will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court situated in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. Any legal proceeding will, therefore, be instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction of High Court of Bangalore only. The controversy has been considered by this Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 ; AIR 1989 SC 1239 =1989-1-L.W. 449). Considering the entire case law on the topic, this Court held that the citizen has the right to have his legal position determined by the ordinary Tribunal except, of course, subject to contract (a) when there is an arbitration clause which is valid and binding under the law, and (b) when parties to a contract agree as to the jurisdiction to which dispute in respect of the contract shall be subject. This is clear from S. 28 of the Contract Act. But an agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the Court will be unlawful and void being against the public policy under S. 23 of the Contract Act. We do not find any such invalidity of clause (21) of the Contract pleaded in this case. On the other hand, this Court laid down that where there may be two or more competent courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen therewith; if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves, the ag reement would be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague, it is not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the statute. Mercantile law and practice permit such agreements”. 6. The counsel for the respondent contended that if the relief sought for in the suit relates to the hire purchase agreement alone then the restriction will have force. But in this case, the plaintiff had claimed excess of payment and also damages for the seizure of the Modi Xerox machine, which is not concerned with the lease agreement. I do not think the counsel for the respondent is correct in making such contentions. Merely because yet another transaction had been included in the suit, it cannot be said that the terms of the hire purchase agreement can be given a go by; especially when the hire purchase transaction is also the main subject-matter of the suit. 7. It may be pertinent to note the averments in the plaintto find out as to which is the subject matter of the suit, which reads as follows:— “The defendant has collected an excess amount of Rs. 16,800-75 from the plaintiff as detailed hereunder towards this transaction. This defendant is bound to refund the said amount to the plaintiff. PARTICULARS Amount to the defendant: Cost of the machine: Rs. 69,300-00 Insurance coverage: 350-00 Stamp and agreement charges: 300-00 Interest for 25 monthsat 15% pa: 14,156-00 Rs. 84.106-25 Amount paid by the plaintiff Initial payment made: Rs. 16,800-75 from the plaintiff as detailed hereunder towards this transaction. This defendant is bound to refund the said amount to the plaintiff. PARTICULARS Amount to the defendant: Cost of the machine: Rs. 69,300-00 Insurance coverage: 350-00 Stamp and agreement charges: 300-00 Interest for 25 monthsat 15% pa: 14,156-00 Rs. 84.106-25 Amount paid by the plaintiff Initial payment made: Rs. 25,000-00 29.3.88 by draft 2,148-00 by cheque 1,941-00 by cheque 1,941-00 by cheque 1,941-00 by cheque 1,941-00 by cheque 1,941-00 12.9.88 by draft 1,951-00 14.10.88 by draft 1,951-00 19.11.88 by draft 1,951-00 30.12.88 by draft 2,000-00 5.8.89 by draft 4,000-00 5.1.90 by draft 2,000-00 29.12.90 by cash at Palani 4,000-00 7.3.90 by cash at Coimbatore (settled the account) 32.500-00 99,157-00 Cost of broken machine tray & Bye Pass tray 1,500-00 Transport charge of machine (Modi Xerox from Coimbatore to Palani) 1,00,957-00 Excess amount collected from the plaintiff: 1,00,957-84,106-25 = 16,850-75” From the above averments, it is clear that the respondent had claimed only the transport charges of the Modi Xerox machine from Coimbatore to Palani i.e., Rs. 300/-. The remaining excess of the amount claimed by him relates to the hire purchase agreement. Hence the suit is mainly for recovery of the amount i.e., the excess payment made by the defendant. Hence the rights of the parties are governed by the agreement of sale. 8. In view of the above referred judgments of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that only the Coimbatore Court has jurisdiction. Hence the order of the lower court is set aside. The lower court is directed to return the plaint for presentation before the proper forum. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.