JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned advocate for the respondent. None present for the petitioners. The brief facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners herein filed a civil suit against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 86,41,535.98 on the ground of damages for non-performance of the contract work. The work was to be performed within Raigad District. The contract papers were signed at Kalamboli. There is no dispute about these facts. 2. Moreover, there is a condition incorporated in Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties which reads as follows : "All disputes arising out of or in any way connected with this agreement shall be deemed to have arisen in Bombay and only the courts in Bombay shall have jurisdiction to determine the same." 3. The respondents herein relying on the said Clause 5 raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Raigad Court to entertain and deal with the matter. The trial Court by its order dated 9th October, 1990 upheld the objection and held that the Court at Raigad has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties. 4. In the impugned order, the trial Court has observed that the relief that is sought by the plaintiff is based on the non-performance of the contract work. However, in view of specific provision in Clause 5 of the contract between the parties to the effect that only the courts in Bombay will have jurisdiction to entertain the matters pertaining to dispute between the parties, the Raigad Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 5. Undisputedly, the claim for damages is on account of non-performance of the contract work and the work site is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Raigad Court. It is also not disputed that the contract papers were signed at Kalamboli. There is no dispute that no part of cause of action in the instant case has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay courts. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of (Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.)1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 740, it cannot be said that the parties can be allowed by an agreement to confer jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of (Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.)1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 740, it cannot be said that the parties can be allowed by an agreement to confer jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. It would have been a different case if a part of cause of action had arisen within the limits of Bombay and part within the limits of Raigad District, in which case parties by an agreement could have agreed to refer the dispute to anyone of the courts of their choice. However, that is not the case in the instant matter and the undisputed fact is that the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Raigad Court. Being so, the respondent cannot avail any benefit from Clause 5 so as to challenge the jurisdiction of Raigad Court to entertain their present suit. 6. The finding arrived at by the trial Court that only the Bombay courts will have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute is neither borne out from the records nor can stand the test of law, considering the well established principle of law that the parties cannot by an agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court. In fact section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly provides that any such suit shall be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arisen. This is clear from Clause (c) of section 20 of C.P.C. which is the relevant provision for decision in the matter considering the facts of the case. Indeed in such circumstances, the Apex Court has clearly observed in Hakam Singh (supra) case as under : "It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which it does not posses under the Code. But where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy." 7. But where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy." 7. In view of the well settled principle of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and considering the decision of the Apex Court in Hakam Singh (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. It is apparently clear that the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly while upholding the objection raised by the respondents in the instant case and to that extent has acted with material irregularity in holding that the Raigad Court has no jurisdiction solely on the basis of Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties, thereby wholly ignoring the relevant provisions of law. 8. In this view of the matter, the Revision Application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Revision application allowed.