Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1057 (RAJ)

Hulas Chand v. Additional District Judge No. 1

2011-05-17

SANGEET LODHA

body2011
Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This miscellaneous appeal is directed against order dated 15.2.08 of the Additional District Judge, No.1, Bikaner whereby while allowing an application preferred by the respondents/defendants u/S. 20 read with Section 151 CPC,the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff has been returned for proper presentation, holding that the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the appellant/plaintiff was awarded a contract by the respondents/defendants for supply of 33 KV Pin Insulator. The clause 14 of the agreement arrived at between the parties makes provision with regard to jurisdiction of the court to decide the dispute arising between the parties, which reads as under:- "14. DISPUTE:-Dispute, if any out of or in respect of this order, are to be settled at Jabalpur or triable in any competent court situated at Jabalpur." 3. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,08,607/- against the respondents/defendants before the court of District Judge, Bikaner which was later transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner. The plaintiff alleged that the respondents/defendants made illegal deductions from the amount payable against the goods supplied. Regarding the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit, in para No. 14 of the plaint it was stated that the order to supply the goods was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff at Bikaner and the goods were dispatched from Bikaner. It was further alleged that the plaintiff accepted the offer to supply the goods at Bikaner and the payment against the goods supplied was also made at Bikaner. Accordingly, it was stated that the said court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The respondents/defendants relying upon clause 14 of the agreement referred supra made an application u/S. 20 read with Section 151 CPC stating that as per the agreement, the dispute, if any out of or in respect of the supply orders are to be settled at Jabalpur or triable in any competent court situated at Jabalpur and therefore, the suit filed in the court at Bikaner is not maintainable. 5. The application was contested by the appellant/plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. 5. The application was contested by the appellant/plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. While reiterating the stand taken in the plaint regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, it was further submitted that the clause of the agreement referred to by the respondents/defendants does not create exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at Jabalpur to entertain the suit and therefore, since the cause of action has partly arisen at Bikaner therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit before the competent court at Bikaner. 6. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the court below arrived at the finding that clause 14 of the agreement, makes it abundantly clear that the dispute arising between them in respect of the supply order shall be tried by the court of competent jurisdiction at Jabalpur and therefore, no other court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court further observed that the court at Bikaner has no jurisdiction inasmuch as, all effective steps in respect of the contract was taken at Jabalpur. Accordingly, by order impugned while allowing the application, the plaint has been returned to the appellant/plaintiff for proper presentation. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has seriously erred in allowing the application preferred by the respondents/ defendants relying upon clause 14 of the agreement. Learned counsel submitted that indisputably, the intimation regarding the acceptance of the tender was received by the plaintiff at Bikaner. That apart, the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the respondents/defendants from Bikaner and the payment was also received by the appellant/plaintiff at Bikaner and therefore, the cause of action having partly arisen at Bikaner, the suit before the Court below was maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that the consent, acceptance or acquiescence of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court or authority and therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to file the suit before the competent court at Bikaner where the cause of action had arisen partly. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of "Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd.", AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh, 271. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of "Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. vs. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd.", AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh, 271. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in terms of clause 14 of the agreement, the contract between the parties was subject to jurisdiction of Jabalpur courts only and therefore, no other court shall have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between the parties arising from the contract. Learned counsel submitted that where two or more competent courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the parties to the contract can agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute and such agreement is valid. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 3 SCC, 107 and Balaji Coke Industry Private Limited vs. Maa Bhagwati Coke Gujarat Private Limited, (2009) 9 SCC, 403. 9. It is true that in terms of provisions of Section 20(c) of CPC a party to the dispute can file suit at the place where cause of action wholly or partly arose. It is also not in dispute that the partly cause of action had arisen at Bikaner. But then, it is settled law that where two or more competent courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, parties to the contract can agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute. Indisputably, in terms of clause 14 of the agreement, the parties have specifically agreed that the dispute if any out or in respect of the supply order in question are to be settled at Jabalpur or triable in any competent court situated at Jabalpur. Thus, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of other courts to entertain the suit stands ousted notwithstanding the fact that such court the suit stands ousted notwithstanding the fact that such court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit on account of part of cause of action having been arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. 10. Thus, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of other courts to entertain the suit stands ousted notwithstanding the fact that such court the suit stands ousted notwithstanding the fact that such court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit on account of part of cause of action having been arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. 10. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a selection/ouster clause in the agreement restricting the adjudication of disputes to one of the courts having jurisdiction held that where two or more courts have jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen therein, it is permissible for the parties to the contract to agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute and such agreement is valid and binding. 11. Similarly, in Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court while relying upon its earlier judgment in Hakam Singh vs. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC, 286, which was also relied upon in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board's case (supra), reiterated that where there are two or more competent courts which can entertain the suit consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen therein, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest the jurisdiction in one of such courts to try the suit which might arise between them, the agreement would be valid. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court by consent or acquiescence but then, the said principle applies only when the parties agree to confer jurisdiction upon a court which it otherwise does not possess under the CPC. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the part of cause of action has arisen at Jabalpur and therefore, the competent court at Jabalpur has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In Jabalpur Cable Network's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the Hon'ble M.P. High Court arrived at a categorical finding that clause in the agreement cannot be said to be conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the civil court at Delhi. In the instant case, as noticed above the clause incorporated in the agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction to the competent court at Jabalpur to adjudicate the dispute arisen between the parties. In the instant case, as noticed above the clause incorporated in the agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction to the competent court at Jabalpur to adjudicate the dispute arisen between the parties. Thus, the aforesaid decision also does not help the appellant in any manner. 13. In view of discussion above, in considered opinion of this court, the court below has committed no error in not entertaining the suit for want of jurisdiction and returning it to appellant/plaintiff to proper presentation. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.