A suit was filed for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff in the suit was a company and the defendant No.l is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act having its head office at Ahmedabad and it has a Depot at Guwahati which is the defendant No.2. There was an agreement on 7.8.88 and that period of agreement was effective from 25.6.87 to 24.6.89 and by that agreement, the plaintiff was appointed as Depot Agent in the North Eastern Region. It should be noted that in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff acted as the agent of defendant No.l even before the agreement came into existence. As per agreement, the plaintiff was to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs and for furnishing the same it took sometime. The defendant No. 1 wanted .certain undated cheques for an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from the plaintiff subject to be returned on furnishing the bank guarantee. It is stated that the plaintiff in bonafide belief issued five cheques of Rs.10 lakhs each drawn in favour of defendant on State Bank of India, AT Road Branch, Guwahati between 27.9.88 to 29.9.88. Thereafter, the bank guarantee was furnished by the plaintiff and there was a demand that the undated cheques issued by the plaintiff may be returned to it. Nothing was done, thereafter, reminders were issued from time to time vide various letters. 2. The plaintiff gave up the agency after the expiry of the agreement and after giving up the agency, the plaintiff again demanded that the cheques in question may be returned to it but, that was not done. Thereafter, the plaintiff instructed its banker not to encash the cheques and that also was informed to the defendant No.l. Thereafter, the suit was filed for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to encash those cheques as they were furnished bonafide before furnishing of the bank guarantee. The defendant Nos 1 and 2 appeared and filed a written statement and the defence which was taken was that in the agreement mentioned above, there was a clause being clause 14.4 which reads as follows : "In case of any dispute the competent Court at Ahmedabad shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate all such matters and jurisdiction of all other Courts is excluded by this agreement." 3. On this plea, a preliminary issue was framed by the trial Court and the trial Court by the impugned order dated 25.11.91 passed in Title Suit No.7 of 1991 held that the Court at Guwahati has the jurisdiction to try the suit, hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard Mr. BM Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants and Mr. OP Bhati, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. Sarma strenuouslycontends that in the agreement there was a clause of ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts at Guwahati, that agreement must be held to be binding between the parties and he further submits that by virtue of sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act, such an agreement is not a void agreement and he further submits that there was a meeting of mind between the parties but, Mr. Sarma fails to take note of furnishing the five cheques handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant before furnishing of the bank guarantee was not a part of an agreement. The contention of Shri Sarma is that these are not undated cheques but dated cheques but it is the subject under the suit to be decided in the suit and it can be tried by the Court at Guwahati. This matter is further covered by the decision of this Court reported in (1973) 3 GLT130, M/s Cheema Enterprises vs. M/s Mayur Enterprises (1997 (2) GLJ 387), wherein this Court has stated that before a Court's jurisdiction can be ousted on the strength of a clause, the meeting of mind must not be in doubt. As indicated above, it can be said that this suit does not arise out of the agreement. In that view of the matter, this revision application stands dismissed. Stay order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. The LCRs shall be sent back.