JUDGMENT This is defendant's revision directed against the Order dated 24.8.95 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 42-A/95 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under O. VII R. 10 r/w. Sec. 151 CPC. The respondent-plaintiff had purchased a passenger Bus from the petitioner on hire-purchasis basis under an agreement executed on 15.11.93 at Indore. It appears that the respondent defaulted in making repayment of instalments of the purchase money and the petitioner, therefore, wanted to take custody of the vehicle. The respondent-plaintiff apprehending the seizure of the vehicle filed suit at Ujjain against the petitioner claiming injunction to restrain the defendant from taking custody of the vehicle. The petitioner-defendant by an application under O. 7 R. 10 r/w. Sec. 151, CPC raised objection that the suit ought to be instituted at Indore. He thus prayed that the plaint be returned to the respondent-plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court at Indore. The application was resisted by the plaintiff who maintained that since he apprehends seizure of vehicle at Ujjain the cause of action for filing suit has, thus, arisen at Ujjain. The Court below by the order impugned rejected the defendant's application. I have heard Shri S.R. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Along with the said application the defendant has filed copy of the hire-purchase agreement. Para 16 of which provided that the parties have agreed that any suit or other legal proceeding relating to the agreement shall be instituted by either party in the Court or the Courts within the local limits of Indore city. The plaintiff in his reply did not dispute the existence of this agreement including para 16 thereof. The agreement was executed at Indore and the petitioner defendant also works for gain at Indore. It cannot be thus disputed that Indore Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Although as per plaint averment a part of action can be said to have arisen at Ujjain too. In a situation like this where a suit can be filed in either of two Courts, the parties can agree that any dispute arising between them shall be tried by one of those Courts only. (See : Hakam Singh AIR 1971 SC 740 and ABC Laminart AIR 1989 SC 1239 ). In a situation like this where a suit can be filed in either of two Courts, the parties can agree that any dispute arising between them shall be tried by one of those Courts only. (See : Hakam Singh AIR 1971 SC 740 and ABC Laminart AIR 1989 SC 1239 ). The Court below in the order impugned has, however, remarked that the plaintiff has challenged the genuineness of the document and particularly the para 16 thereof. This observation, I find, is contrary to the facts. I have gone through the reply filed by the plaintiff and no where in this reply the plaintiff has challenged the genuineness of the said agreement. In the result, I allow this revision, set-aside the order impugned arid direct that the plaint be returned to the respondent plaintiff for presentation to proper Court after complying with the provisions of Rule 10A of O. VII CPC.