Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1546 (PNJ)

Arun Chadha v. M/s Soni Agencies

2007-08-27

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The entire controversy involved between the parties revolves around the platform of territorial jurisdiction. By virtue of the impugned order dated 7.2.2007, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri recorded a finding on the preliminary issue, which runs as under : " Whether Civil Court of Yamuna Nagar has territorial jurisdiction or not ?" 3. The operative part of the impugned order dated 7.2.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri runs as under :- "Concededly, an agreement was arrived at and signed between the parties in the form of C & FA Form, which is Ex-D1 on the file. As per the term and conditions of the agreement Ex. D1, it has been mentioned that "All disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of Agra Courts". For ouster or exclusion of jurisdiction of court having concurrent jurisdiction, the language in the agreement must be unambiguous, clear and specific. From condition in the C & FA form " Subject to jurisdiction of Agra Court", ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts cannot be implied. Position would have been different if the condition was "subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts only or alone." The defendants supplied the salt from Agra in response to C & FA agreement and the salt was to be sold and distributed in Yamuna Nagar. From the condition " subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts", it cannot be said that there was any consensus or agreement between the parties on the question of jurisdiction of Courts. Courts at both the places i.e., Yamuna Nagar and Agra have jurisdiction. Plaintiff, i.e., the party receiving the goods had, in the absence of exclusion of jurisdiction the choice in the matter of filing a suit in a particular court. The mere use of the words "subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts" cannot mean that only Agra Courts have jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff has received the goods in Yamuna Nagar, issued demand drafts from Yamuna Nagar shall have jurisdiction to try the present suit. Accordingly, the preliminary issue is decided against the defendants." 4. Aggrieved against the order, the present petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revision petition. 5. Before I proceed further in the matter, I would like to peep through the facts available on the record of the case. Accordingly, the preliminary issue is decided against the defendants." 4. Aggrieved against the order, the present petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revision petition. 5. Before I proceed further in the matter, I would like to peep through the facts available on the record of the case. 6. Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to respondent-M/s Soni Agencies) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,77,843/- from M/s J M D Marketing Enterprises through its partners Sunil Sithi and Arun Chadha, residents of 2, Chiranjeev Pustakalya Building, City Station Road, Agra. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as Carrying and Forwarding Agent for the sale of Modi Super Refined Free Flow Salt for the area of Haryana State as per letter dated 26.9.1997 issued by the present petitioner-defendant. As per objections taken by the present petitioner, at the time of appointment of the respondent as Carrying and Forwarding Agent an agreement was arrived at between the parties, which was duly signed by the plaintiff-respondent wherein it was mentioned under clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the agreement "that all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of Agra Courts" and as such, as per the case of the Z petitioner, jurisdiction of civil Court at Yamuna Nagar is barred an d the entire case of both the parties revolves around the agreement entered between them and particularly the terms and conditions of that disputes will be subject to jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Agra. In order to determine the point of territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such like circumstances, the entire case has to be examined in view of the ouster clause. Often it has been seen that under the contract a stipulation made therein is that contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place and this would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, at the face of it. take away jurisdiction of the other courts. The ouster clause must be spelled out that it is ousting the jurisdiction of other courts. It would not, however, at the face of it. take away jurisdiction of the other courts. The ouster clause must be spelled out that it is ousting the jurisdiction of other courts. In order to exclude jurisdiction of other courts, ouster clause must use words like alone only and exclusive and if such words are used, there is no difficulty and it clearly ousts the jurisdiction of other Courts. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In the instant case, it is an admitted case that as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, it has been clearly mentioned that all disputes will be subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts. The question would arise whether it can be construed to have excluded jurisdiction of other Courts except for Agra Courts. In the clause in hand, no word like `exclusive, alone, or only has been used and in such like circumstances, I find that the learned lower court has rightly concluded that ouster of the jurisdiction of other Courts cannot be implied. It is true that position would have been different if it was mentioned "subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts" only or alone. Clause mentioned in the agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Yamuna Nagar. It is an admitted case that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has received the goods at Yamuna Nagar, issued demand drafts from Yamuna Nagar and therefore, the Civil Court at Yamuna Nagar shall have jurisdiction to try the present suit. I have no other option but to affirm the findings of the learned lower court under preliminary issue mentioned above and in the final analysis, the present petition is dismissed with costs.