V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24-9-1997 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sompet, srikakulam District in LA. No. 723 of 1996 in o. S. No. 72 of 1994. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed the application made by the respondent herein holding that the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sompet, has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Holding so, it directed the petitioner-plaintiff to present the suit before the Court of the subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, within two weeks from the date of the said order. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit being o. S. No. 72 of 1994 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge. , Sompet, for recovery of all monetary benefits in a sum of Rs. 85,969-46 ps. In the suit, he claimed that he has been an employee/agent of the defendant concern for more than 30 years, and that he is entitled for the suit amount. The defendant filed written statement inter alia taking a plea that the Court at Sompet has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as at the time of appointment, the plaintiff executed an agreement agreeing to the jurisdiction of the burt at Rajahmundry. The lower Court framed the issues on 15-5-1995, including issue No. 1 as to the territorial jurisdiction at sompet. ( 3 ) THE defendant filed LA. No. 723 of 1996 praying the lower Court to decide issue No. l as to the territorial jurisdiction, under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity the CPC) as a preliminary issue before the commencement of the trial. In the application, the defendant averred that the plaintiff executed two agreements in favour of the defendant on 8-6-1961 and 16-12-1971 specifically agreeing to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Rajahmundry, to entertain the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, the Court at sompet has no territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed counter-affidavit disputing the factual and legal position. He also denied the "admission and execution" of the documents relied on by the defendant. He also contended that the cause of action arose at Sompet, as he was an agent/clerk of the branch of the defendant concern. ( 4 ) THE defendant marked Exs. A-1 and a-2. Neither side adduced any oral evidence. He also denied the "admission and execution" of the documents relied on by the defendant. He also contended that the cause of action arose at Sompet, as he was an agent/clerk of the branch of the defendant concern. ( 4 ) THE defendant marked Exs. A-1 and a-2. Neither side adduced any oral evidence. The trial Court relying on exs. A-1 and A-2 came to the conclusion that as per these two documents the Court at sompet has no jurisdiction to try the suit, and only the Courts at Rajahmundry, have jurisdiction to try the suit, and accordingly allowed the application LA. No. 723 of 19%. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed. ( 5 ) THOUGH notices were served on the respondent-defendant way back on 28-3- 1998, the respondent has not chosen to appear either personally or through a duly instructed Counsel. ( 6 ) SRI A. Satya Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not reasonable to infer from Exs. A-1 and A-2, agreements allegedly executed by the plaintiff that he agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Rajahmundry. He also submitted that Exs. A-1 and A-2 will not specifically oust the jurisdiction of the courts at Sompet insofar as the suit claim is concerned. He lastly submitted that when the Courts at Rajahmundry as well as sompet have jurisdiction, the agreement between the parties cannot oust or exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts at Sompet in the absence of any conclusive and specific indication to that effect. ( 7 ) THE point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether on a fair reading of Exs. A-1 and A-2, it can be said that only the Courts at Rajahmundry have jurisdiction to try the suit? ( 8 ) THE relevant clause in Ex. A-1 and ex. A-2, which has been extracted in the impugned order runs thus:"ex. A-1: In furtherance of my service agreement dated 16-12-1971,1 hereby agree to bind myself personally for the acts of my principal (whosoever I appoint) in the discharge, of duties as your agent and undertake to indemnify you in all respects, and I hereby submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction in case of all claims as against me. ""ex. A-1: In furtherance of my service agreement dated 16-12-1971,1 hereby agree to bind myself personally for the acts of my principal (whosoever I appoint) in the discharge, of duties as your agent and undertake to indemnify you in all respects, and I hereby submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction in case of all claims as against me. ""ex. A-2: In furtherance of my service agreement dated 8-7-1961, I hereby agree to bind myself personally for the acts of my employee (whosoever I appoint) in the discharge of duties as your agent/clerk and undertake to indemnify you in all respects, and I hereby submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction in case of all claims as against me. " ( 9 ) EX. A-1, is an agreement allegedly between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which the plaintiff as an agent binds himself to discharge the duties as an agent, and also indemnifies the principal (defendant) in all respects, and also covenants that he would submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction in case of all claims as against him. In ex. A-2-agreement, the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant concern binds himself personally for the acts as an employee in the discharge of duties as the agent/clerk of the defendant and indemnifies the principal, and also covenants to submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction in ease of all claims against him. ( 10 ) FROM a reading of the above clauses in the two agreements, it can reasonably be inferred that the plaintiff while indemnifying the principal as an agent agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts at Rajahmundry in respect of all the claims by the principal against the plaintiff. He never agreed or covenanted to the jurisdiction of Rajahmundry Courts in case as an agent/clerk he files a suit against the principal. The two agreements, to my mind seem to take an indemnity from the agent in favour of the principal. The act of indemnification is too obvious in the covenants, and in that context, it is reasonable to infer that the agent agreed to submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction when any claim is made by the principal against the agent. In any event, the words or clauses conferring exclusivity on the rajahmundry Courts like "only" or "alone" are absent. The act of indemnification is too obvious in the covenants, and in that context, it is reasonable to infer that the agent agreed to submit to Rajahmundry jurisdiction when any claim is made by the principal against the agent. In any event, the words or clauses conferring exclusivity on the rajahmundry Courts like "only" or "alone" are absent. This gives an indication that the plaintiff is entitled to sue in any place when the cause of action arose or in a place when the defendant carries on business. ( 11 ) THE provisions of Sections 16 to 22 of the CPC deal with the pecuniary and. territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts sections 16 to 19 deal with specifi situations vis-a-vis the territorial jurisdictiot of the Court. The other situations are governed by Section 20 of the CPC subjed to the limitations contained in Sections 161 19 of the CPC. As per Section 20 of the CIC every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or each of the defendants voluntarily resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises in whole or in part. For instance, if a proprietary concern or a firm or a Corporation, has a place of business at one place, and also has branches elsewhere, a suit against such concern can be instituted either at the place of main business or at the place of branch office or at the place where the cause of action in whole or in part arises. One of the two illustrations given under Section 20 read as under: (A) A is a tradesman in Calcutta. B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of a and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in calcutta. A may sue B for the price of goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen, or in delhi, where B. carries on business. ( 12 ) THE above illustration amply supports my view. Applying the above principle it should be held that the defendant, which admittedly has a branch office at Sompet, atleast from 1961 onwards, and which has engaged the plaintiff as agent/clerk, cannot non-suit him on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. ( 12 ) THE above illustration amply supports my view. Applying the above principle it should be held that the defendant, which admittedly has a branch office at Sompet, atleast from 1961 onwards, and which has engaged the plaintiff as agent/clerk, cannot non-suit him on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. ( 13 ) IN Hakam Singh vs. Gammon (India) ltd. , it was held that it is not open to the parties by agreement to confer jurisdiction on any Court, which it otherwise did not possess under the Code, and that where two Courts have jurisdiction under the code 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 cy policy, contravening Section 28 of the indian Contract Act, 1872. This statement of law was quoted with approval in Patel roadways vs. Prasad Trading Co. . In R. S. D. V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Vallabh Glass works Ltd. , the apex Court placing reliance on the earlier judgment in A. B. C. Laminart pvt. Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem, rules that in the absence of specific clauses or words indicating exclusivity of jurisdiction of a court, any inference of ouster of jurisdiction would be illegal. The observations made in the context of the said case are apt, and support my view. ( 14 ) AS already held by me, Exs. A-1 and a-2 do not exclusively confer jurisdiction on rajahmundry Courts, ousting- the jurisdiction of Sompet Courts, where admittedly, the plaintiff has been working as clerk/agent for mote than three decades, and that itself gives the plaintiff cause of action to sue at Sompet. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons, I find the impugned order unsustainable, and accordingly the same is set aside The trial court shall proceed with the trial, and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 16 ) IN the result, the C. R. P. is allowed, but in Ae circumstances without costs.