ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order, dated 18.8.2009, passed, in Money Suit No. 07/2008, by the learned Civil Judge, Tezpur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the defendant-petitioners' prayer for dismissing the suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 2. Heard Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned senior counsel for the defendant-petitioners, and Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned senior counsel, for the plaintiff-opposite party. 3. Before coming to the merit of the impugned order, certain material facts need to be taken note of. 4. The opposite party herein instituted the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,55,863 with interest and cost, the plaintiff's case being, in brief, thus: The defendant No. 1 had, on 5.3.1983, appointed the plaintiff as their garden banker. The defendants used to pay interest/discount to the plaintiff against the bills submitted by the plaintiff. During the course of such business transaction, the plaintiff raised a bill for payment of his dues to the tune of Rs. 7,55,863. As the defendants had, according to the plaintiff, failed to make payment despite notice, the suit was instituted. 5. The defendants did not file any written statement in the suit. Instead thereof, they filed a petition, under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, at Tezpur, on the ground that the term No. 10 of the letter of appointment of the plaintiff, as their garden banker, stipulates that any dispute, arising between the plaintiff-defendants relating to matters, which are mentioned in Clause 19 of the said letter of appointment, shall be settled, at Calcutta, mutually by and between the parties. Consequently, according to the defendants, no suit could have been filed at Tezpur or Calcutta. The defendants, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 6. As the learned court below has rejected the said petition, this revision, as already indicated above, has been filed by the defendants. 7. Consequently, according to the defendants, no suit could have been filed at Tezpur or Calcutta. The defendants, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 6. As the learned court below has rejected the said petition, this revision, as already indicated above, has been filed by the defendants. 7. While considering this revision, it needs to be pointed out that the objection to jurisdiction of a court, under Section 21, can be raised as regards its territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and not when a suit does not lie or when a court is incompetent, under the law, for reasons other than territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain a suit. The relevant statements of the defendants, appearing at paragraph 4 of their application made under Section 21, read thus: That in view of the above Term No. 10 contained in the Letter of Appointment as Garden Banker dated 5.3. 1983, the said dispute needs be settled mutually by the parties at Calcutta, hence, no suit lies in any civil court either at Calcutta or at Tezpur, the same being barred by express provisions as contained under Term No. 10 of the above Letter of Appointment. Therefore, this Hon'ble court not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit the same ought to be dismissed in limine. 8. From a bare reading of the statements, made at para 5, it is abundantly clear that the defendants raised objection to the jurisdiction of the court not on the ground of want of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, but on the ground that no suit will lie in any civil court. Such a plea could not have been raised under Section 21 of the Code. 9. Coupled with the above, what also needs to be noted is that according to the defendants, as there is an agreement between the parties stipulating that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same shall be mutually settled at Calcutta, the said agreement bars jurisdiction of the civil courts to try such a suit; for, without failure of the settlement, which parties ought to make endeavour to mutually arrive at, no cause of action can be said to have arisen. Suffice it to point out, in this regard, that such a plea would amount to saying that the suit is pre-matured inasmuch as no cause of action for the suit has as yet arisen, and/or that the suit is not maintainable, because of the agreement existing between the parties, which requires the parties concerned to make endeavour to mutually settle their disputes at Calcutta, but no such endeavour has yet been made by the parties concerned. 10. Situated thus, it becomes clear that if a suit suffers from want of cause of action or for want of any other requirements of law, such a question can be raised by a defendant in his written statement and if such a question becomes a pure question of law, such a question may be tried even as a preliminary issue. 11. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that the defendants' application, made in the present case under Section 21 of the Code, was wholly misconceived. This apart, the defendants have, so far, not shown as to what law bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain a suit, where there is an agreement, such as, the one, which the defendants rely upon, requires the parties mutually settle their disputes at Calcutta. 12. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision fails and the same is, therefore, not admitted. The defendants are, however, given the liberty to take the plea of want of jurisdiction or want of cause of action as regards institution of the suit in their written statement and if such a plea is taken, the learned court below shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. 13. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of. 14. No order as to costs.