Order : This civil revision is by the plaintiff. By the impugned order the plaint of the title Suit No. 174 of 1992 has been returned on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction in view of the ouster clause contained in clause 9 of the agreement. 2. Clause 9 of the agreement runs as follows :- "In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties relating to the construction, meaning and effect of performance or any other matter under these presents the Court at Calcutta alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 3. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem (AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 1239) the Supreme Court considered the effect of ouster clause and observed : “.. Where the parties to a contract agreed to submit the disputes arising from it to a particular jurisdiction which would otherwise also be a proper jurisdiction under the law their agreement to the extent they agreed not to submit to other jurisdictions cannot be said to be void as against public policy. If on the other hand, the jurisdiction they agreed to submit to would not otherwise be proper jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of the contract it must be declared being against public policy." 4. Earlier in Hakan Singh vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. (AIR 1971 Supreme Court, 740), the Court had observed, "It was not open to the parties to agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a court which it did not possess under the Code." 5. In the present case, no part of cause of action appears to have arisen at Calcutta. The parties, therefore, by so called agreement could not confer jurisdiction on Calcutta Court much less to the exclusion of the jurisdiction where the cause of action has arisen. The Hajipur court is, therefore, competent to try the same. The order of the' court below returning the plaint for presentation in a court of Calcutta, therefore, does not appear to be correct in law. 6. The impugned order dated 22.5.96 is, accordingly, set aside. This application is allowed.