JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 07/09/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2013, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners - defendants No. 1 to 4 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioners and the respondent No.2 seeking various reliefs inter-alia for grant of perpetual injunction on the basis of the distributorship contract dated 28/09/2007 entered into between the respondent No.1-plaintiff, and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 - defendant Nos.1 and 2. According to the respondent No.1 - plaintiff, the said contract was terminated with effect from 31/12/2012 illegally, for which a separate suit was filed against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 challenging the said termination, however, subsequently, the plaintiff-company came to know that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 were providing the confidential information of the plaintiff company to its competitors, and were inducing the customers of the plaintiff illegally and misguiding them. Hence, the subsequent suit was filed seeking reliefs against all the petitioners and the respondent No.2-defendants. In the said suit, the present petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC alleging inter - alia that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen only had the jurisdiction to decide the disputes arising out of the said contract, in view of Clause 34 of the said Contract. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the petitioners that as per the agreement in question, only the Court at Copenhagen had the jurisdiction to try the suit, and the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Taking the Court to the averments made in the plaint, he submitted that the plaintiff had not disclosed the relevant clause contained in the agreement, which barred the jurisdiction of the Court. Taking the Court to the averments made in the plaint, he submitted that the plaintiff had not disclosed the relevant clause contained in the agreement, which barred the jurisdiction of the Court. Relying upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Kamala & Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661 : AIR 2008 SC 3174 , he submitted that issue of jurisdiction could be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code like Order 7, Rule 11 or Order 14, Rule 2 CPC. He also submitted that no cause of action had arisen against the petitioners, and that the clever drafting of the plaint would not confer any jurisdiction on the Court, when the parties had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular Court as per the agreement. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 : AIR 1977 SC 2421 , he submitted that the manifestly vexatious, and meritless suits should be dismissed by the Courts in exercise of the powers conferred under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. 4. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, for the respondent No.1-plaintiff submitted that the cause of action against all the defendants including the petitioners had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, as stated in the plaint, and that the issue of jurisdiction being mixed question of law and fact, the Trial Court had rightly rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Taking the Court to the Clause 34 of the agreement in question, Mr. Kasliwal submitted that the Court at Copenhagen, referred to in the said clause, had the jurisdiction to settle the disputes between the parties and not to adjudicate the disputes. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. & Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 618 : AIR 2008 SC 685 , he submitted that the words "cause of action" and "the applicability of law" are two different things, and that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC could not be entertained on the ground that as per the agreement, the laws of Foreign Country were made applicable. Relying on the decision of Apex Court in case of D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 267 : AIR 1999 SC 1128 , he submitted that the plaint cannot be rejected partially by dissecting the pleadings in several parts. Mr. Kasliwal has also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791 : AIR 2005 SC 4446 to submit that neither the consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer the jurisdiction upon the Court, which otherwise was incompetent to try the suit, and that in the instant case, no cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Copenhagen, suit of the plaintiff could not be said to be barred under the agreement muchless under any law. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the bone of contention raised by the petitioners - defendants No.1 to 4 in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was that the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clause 34 of the agreement in question. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff, and also observed by the Trial Court in the impugned order in the instant case, the issue of the jurisdiction would be a mixed question of law and fact, which could be decided either as a preliminary issue or at the time of trial, as the case may be, after the parties have led their respective evidence on such issue. From the bare reading of Clause 34 of the agreement also, it does not appear that the institution of the suit on the subject matter involved was barred under the said agreement or under any law. 6. As per the settled position the Court, while dealing with the application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, has to take into consideration the averments made in the plaint, and the documents annexed thereto only, and to decide as to whether the suit was barred by any law or not. Without entering into the merits of the case, suffice is to say that the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Without entering into the merits of the case, suffice is to say that the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner has failed to point out that the suit of the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was barred by any law. There cannot be any disagreement to the proposition of law propounded by the Apex Court in the various decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Agarwal to the effect that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Courts should nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the Code. It is also axiomatic to say that no party should be permitted to abuse or misuse the process of law. However, so far as the rejection of the plaint is concerned, the Court has to see whether the case falls within the purview of any of the clauses mentioned in Order 7, Rule 11 . In the instant case, the petitioners having failed to make out that the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff was barred by any law, the plaint could not be rejected under Clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 , CPC. 7. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******