Judgment 1. The defendant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited is the petitioner before this Court. 2. The plaintiff-Uppal Engineering Company (P) Limited filed a suit for declaration with some consequential reliefs against defendant No. 1, Syndicate Bank and also against the present petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation. During the course of the aforesaid proceedings, an objection was taken by the defendant-petitioner with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gurgaon. It was claimed that as per Clause 4.1 of the contract agreement between the parties, it had been specifically provided that only the Courts at New Delhi would have jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the parties. the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner, was overruled by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated February 23, 1993. The aforesaid order passed by the trial Judge has been impugned by the defendant-petitioner before this Court by filing the present revision petition. 3. Shri I. K. Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation has placed strong reliance upon Article 4.1 of the Contract agreement and has contended that the language of the aforesaid clause clearly showed that only the Courts at New Delhi would have the jurisdiction to deal with any disputes between the parties and the jurisdiction of all other Courts had been specifically excluded. 4. For due appreciation of the aforesaid contention, it would be necessary to extract the language of Article 4.1 of the Contract agreement as follows : "4.1 Jurisdiction - Notwithstanding any other Court or Courts having jurisdiction to decide the question(s) forming the subject matter of the reference if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, any and all actions and proceedings arising out of or relative to the contract (including any arbitration in terms thereof) shall belie only in the Court of competent civil jurisdiction in this behalf at New Delhi (where the contract has been signed on behalf of the owner) and only said Court(s) shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit action(s) and/or proceeding(s) to the exclusion of all other Courts." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid clause 4.1 clearly shows that it had been agreed between the parties that notwithstanding the fact that any other Court or Courts had jurisdiction to deal the question with regard to any controversy arising betwen the parties, still the parties had specifically agreed that all such actions or proceedings would be maintainable only in the Court of competent civil jurisdiction at New Delhi. It has further been stipulated by the parties that all other Courts having jurisdiction in the matter would stand excluded. 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Judge further shows that a reliance has been placed upon some observations made by this Court while deciding the revision petition with regard to an interim injunction. However, I have gone through the order dated February 7, 1991 passed by this Court in revision petition No. 2083 of 1990. The controversy with regard to jurisdiction was neither being examined by this Court in the revision petition nor any such observations, as have been stated by the learned trial Court, had been made in the aforesaid order. It is clear that the learned trial Court has completely misconstrued and misread the aforesaid order passed by this Court. It is not in dispute that in a dispute arising between the parties more than one Court may have jurisdiction. If there is no agreement between the parties in this regard all the aforesaid Courts would have jurisdiction to entertain the controversy between the parties and in such a situation, the aggrieved party may approach any one of those Courts. However, by their voluntary act and agreement the parties can always agree that any one of the aforesaid Courts would have the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. However, the parties by their consent cannot confer jurisdiction on any such Court which does not have the jurisdiction in the matter at all. But if there are more than one Court having the concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the controversy, then the parties can agree that only one of the Courts would have jurisdiction. In the present case, the Courts at New Delhi obviously have the jurisdiction to deal the matter, since the contract in question had been signed between the parties at New Delhi. In the present case, the Courts at New Delhi obviously have the jurisdiction to deal the matter, since the contract in question had been signed between the parties at New Delhi. May be the Courts at Gurgaon have jurisdiction, as cause of action arose at Gurgaon also where the construction of residential houses were to be completed. However, since the parties had agreed and specifically conferred upon the jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi, then obviously the Gurgaon Courts would have no jurisdiction. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated February 23, 1993 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to him for presentation to appropriate Court, if so advised.