Honble PALLI, J. – This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff/petitioner to be presented to the Court of competent Jurisdiction. (2). The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of money against the respondents saying that the goods delivered to respondent No.1 to be sent to respondent No.2 did not reach the proper destination all thus the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the material along with the interest. The defendants in the written statement took up the objection of territorial jurisdiction and issue No. 5 was framed to that effect and was treated as preliminary issue and decided as such. (3). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned court has committed an error in passing the impugned order as the said order would be deemed to have been passed under O.14 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not prepared to accept this argument of the learned counsel. The same has no basis. (4). The next submission of the learned counsel is that the issue required evidence and the parties should have been permitted to adduce evidence and therein plaintiff could have established that the Court at Jodhpur alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit. No such request appears to have been made as the order is completely silent about it. The only argument raised before the trial Court, as it appears from the impugned order, is that the plaintiff heavily relied on the fact that since the goods were sent from Jodhpur, therefore, this Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is for the plaintiff to make a choice to file the suit in the Court which according to the averment made in the plaint has the jurisdiction to try the suit. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the receipt placed by the plaintiff on record, it is the Court at Delhi that has the jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore the learned trial Court relying on this receipt passed the impugned order. (6). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents defendants submits that the Head Office of the respondents is at Delhi. (6). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents defendants submits that the Head Office of the respondents is at Delhi. The parties have accepted the terms and conditions that in case there is a dispute, the same would be triable by the courts in Delhi. In further support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court reported in Globe Transport Corporation vs. Trivedi Engineering Works and another (1). Their Lordships have held in this decision that ``the parties can by agreement opt for jurisdiction of the court at a particular place of suing excluding other places which are otherwise open to them for suing. Admitte-dly, when the Head Office of the respondents is at Delhi, the courts in Delhi have the jurisdiction to try the suit and in this situation no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court. (7). My attention has also been brought to another decision of this Court reported in M/s Singhal Transport vs. M/s. Jesaram Jamumal (2). In this case the question pertained to the liability of carrier and the transport company accepted the consignment on the terms printed on back of the ticket. It was held that the consignor has bound himself by such conditions whether he read those conditions or not or whether he has signed the same or not. (8). Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that this revision is not maintainable as the plaint has been ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction and it would come within the purview of O. 43 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with appealable orders. O.43 rule 1 (a) provides that an order under rule 10 of O.7 returning the plaint to be presented to the proper court is appealable under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is force in this submission and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute this argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents except what he says is that this order was passed under O.14 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have already said in the opening part of this order that I am not impressed by this argument. (9). I have already said in the opening part of this order that I am not impressed by this argument. (9). After having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that there is no illegality, impropriety or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and the same appears to be perfectly just and proper. I further hold that this revision filed by the petitioner is not competent and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. (10). Consequently, this revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.