M. K. Sharma,j. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners against therespondents under Sections 8,9 and 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointmentof an Arbitrator preferably a retired Judge of this Court or any other person foradjudication of the disputes arising between the parties. It is stated that in responseto the notice inviting tender for the work of "general Interior and Electrical Worksin the office of respondent No. 1 at Lucknow, U. P. ". The petitioner submitted histender and finally his tender was accepted with certain conditions by way of counteroffer. In respect of execution of the aforesaid contract the disputes are stated to havearisen between the parties and accordingly, the petitioners have invoked clause2. 53. 0 of the contract between the parties. The said Clause 2. 53. 0 provides that in caseof disputes or differences between the parties in respect of which the decision has notbeen final and conclusive in relation to or in connection with the contract would bereferred for arbitration in the manner provided in the said clause. The petitioners bytheir letter dated 26. 12. 1990 requested the respondent No. 2 to act in terms of clause2. 53. 0 of the contract for reference of the disputes for arbitration. According to thepetitioners, by a letter dated 23. 2. 1991, the respondents declined to refer the matterto arbitration and accordingly the present petition has been filed in this Court for theaforesaid reliefs. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed a reply in the present petition Contending inter aliathat this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and/or to try and decide the presentpetition. According to the respondents the tender of the petitioner was accepted bythe respondents at respondent s office at Lucknow and that the contract wascompleted at Lucknow when the Letter of Acceptance dated 12. 9. 1989 of therespondents was issued, and therefore, the cause of action, if any, arose at Lucknow. It is stated that even otherwise the office of the respondents is situate at Lucknow andunder such circumstances this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Therespondents further stated that in terms of Clause 2. 13. 2 no proceedings relating tothe contract in question could be taken by the petitioners in any Court of law exceptat Lucknow. It is stated that even otherwise the office of the respondents is situate at Lucknow andunder such circumstances this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Therespondents further stated that in terms of Clause 2. 13. 2 no proceedings relating tothe contract in question could be taken by the petitioners in any Court of law exceptat Lucknow. The Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even if it isassumed and decided that cause of action in the present case had arisen also at Delhiapart from Lucknow then also in terms of Clause 2. 13. 2 of the agreement betweenthe parties the petitioners could not have filed the present case in a Court in Delhiin terms of the said clause which provides that no proceedings relating to thiscontract would be taken by the contractor in any Court except at Lucknow. Thecounsel for the respondent drew my attention to the decisions of the Supreme Courtin ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A. P. Agencies; reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 and Hakamsingh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. , AIR 1971 SC 740 , and two un-reported decisions ofthis Court in Suit No. 1383 and I. A. 6294/1993, M/s. Manorama Packaging (P) Ltd. v. The Pradeshiya Industrial b Investment Corporation; disposed of on 30. 7. 1993 andalso the order dated 10. 11. 1996 passed by this Court in Suit No. 317/1992 titled Satyaelectricals v. PICUP. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also havingconsidered the relevant clauses of the agreement I feel that the effect of Clause 2. 13. 2relating to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a proceeding could be taken up forconsideration at the first instance in view of the fact that if the contention as raisedby the respondents with the support of the said Clause that the Court at Lucknowhas only jurisdiction is upheld then it is not necessary to go into the question as towhether cause of action had also partly arisen at Delhi or not. Let me, therefore,consider the issue as to whether in view of Clause 2. Let me, therefore,consider the issue as to whether in view of Clause 2. 13 2 it could be said that no othercourt except the Court at Lucknow has any jurisdiction to try and decide theproceedings out of the present contract and if the said contention is upheld thepresent petition is necessarily to be held to be not maintainable and the plaint filedin the present petition is to be returned to the petitioners in terms of the provisionsof Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) BEFORE I proceed to examine the said issue, for convenience sake let me ex tractthe said provisions: "2. 13. 0 Laws2. 13. 1 The Contract shall be governed by the laws of State for the time being inforce with the same force and effect as if incorporated in full into the Contractdocuments. Where such laws, rules and regulations conflict with the Contractdocuments, the more stringent requirements as interpreted by the Engineershall govern. 2. 13. 2 Should such conflicts require changes in the Contract Documents, thecontractor shall promptly notify the Engineer. No proceedings relating to thiscontract shall be taken by the contractor in any Court of Law except atlucknow. " ( 5 ) THE Counsel appearing for the petitioner made an effort to interpret theaforesaid provision contending inter alia that the same clause is applicable onlywhen there is a conflict of any laws, rules and regulations with the Contractdocuments and in view of such conflicts the contract requiring certain changes, thenonly the ouster clause as provided for in 2. 13. 2 would apply. However, on properappreciation of the said clause I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for thepetitioners for it is specifically laid down in the said clause that no proceedingsrelating to this contract could be taken by the contractor in any Court of law exceptat Lucknow. The clause appears to me to be very positive and the same relates to anydisputes arising out of the contract irrespective of the nature of the disputes betweenthe parties. When any dispute relating to the contract arises between the parties anyproceedings thereto will have to be taken by the contractor in a Court of law atlucknow. The clause appears to me to be very positive and the same relates to anydisputes arising out of the contract irrespective of the nature of the disputes betweenthe parties. When any dispute relating to the contract arises between the parties anyproceedings thereto will have to be taken by the contractor in a Court of law atlucknow. The aforesaid view that I have taken also finds support from the decisionof the Supreme Court in ABC Laminarts Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) wherein it has beenlaid down that where there might be two or more competent Courts which couldentertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisentherewithin, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Courtto try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement would bevalid. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, even if itis assumed that both Delhi and Lucknow Courts can entertain the present suitconsequent upon the parts of the cause of action having arisen at both the places butsince the parties to the contract have agreed to vest jurisdiction in the Court of Lawat Lucknow the said agreement would be valid and binding on the parties. ( 6 ) THIS Court in M/s. Manorama Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also held thatit is open to the parties to select one or more than one Court having jurisdiction andagree to give it exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication of disputes between theparties. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, on a proper appreciation of the aforesaid clause in the contract,in my considered view, in the instant case Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction and thepetitioner should have approached the Courts at Lucknow in terms of Clause 2. 13. 2. I, therefore, direct for return of the plaint to the petitioners in accordance with Order7 Rule 10 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above the plaint is returnedto the plaintiffs for presentation to the Competent Court at Lucknow which wouldhave the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The interim order, if any, grantedstands vacated. "the petition stands disposed of accordingly.