JUDGMENT : Najmi Waziri, J.:-- 1. This petition impugns an order of 5.7.2013, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 10, CPC was dismissed. In the said application, it was contended that in view of the jurisdiction/exclusion clause contained in the purchase order dated 30.7.2008, the Court of competent jurisdiction was in Kolkata and the Delhi Courts where the suit was instituted, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff had argued that the cause of action for the suit was not restricted to or governed by the sale transaction document exclusively but was also occasioned by the incidence of deposit of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘CST Act’), which was payable in Delhi. Such payment would be on the basis of a C-Form which was required to be issued by the defendant/purchaser of goods/present petitioner. The plaintiff had submitted that insofar as the defendant was not issuing the C-Form, the cause of action would lie in Delhi because Central Sales Tax was payable in Delhi and accordingly the Delhi Courts would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the sale transaction was concluded in Delhi. 2. The Trial Court recorded that the plaintiff had claimed to have made a payment of Rs. 1,87,526/- to the Union of India towards tax, through Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street, New Delhi and by virtue of Sections 3 & 4 of the CST Act, the sale transaction between the parties would be deemed to have taken place at New Delhi. The Trial Court reasoned that Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction upon a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 3. The Trial Court took considered the following six judgements relied upon by the applicant/present petitioner as well as the judgements relied upon by the plaintiffs in respect of their contention to the effect that the jurisdiction lay with Delhi courts: i. M/s Angile Insulations v. M/s Davy Ashmore India Ltd. & Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 153 ; ii. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671 ; iii. A.V.M. Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals Private Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 315 ; iv. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671 ; iii. A.V.M. Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals Private Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 315 ; iv. M/s Polyblends (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s Videocon Industries Ltd., (I.A. No. 5985/2005 & 11606/2007 in CS(OS) No. 1228/2005, decided on 13.7.2010 by this High Court; v. Unimers India Ltd. v. The IFCI Ltd. and Ors. 2012 (129) DRJ 608 ; vi. Wollaque Ventilation and Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. v. Sterling Tools Ltd. 177 (2011) DLT 731. The Trial Court found the precedents cited by the applicant/petitioner as inapplicable to the present case because in all those cases the issue of jurisdiction had been decided on the point of sale transaction, i.e. where the cause of action not only arose due to the transaction of sale itself. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs had contended cause of action on the basis of sale transaction but also for payment of tax under the CST Act, for which the statutory place of payment was Delhi, because incidence of sale was from Delhi. The requisite Form-C not having been supplied by the purchaser the cause of action was found to have arisen in Delhi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon M/s. Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation, JT 2013 (10) SC 35 to contend that wherever an ouster clause exists in an agreement, it has to be given effect to, since it would be deemed to be the clear intention of the parties to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts other than those mentioned in the concerned clause. He states that those ouster clauses were never in dispute and therefore ought to be given a full effect. However, this Court is of the view that M/s. Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the present case because the facts are different. Simple printed conditions on the back of a bill or a consignment note which restricts jurisdiction to only one Court, cannot be a rider on the jurisdiction of another competent Court to entertain the suit. What is required to be seen in an ouster clause of an agreement is, whether the parties were ad idem on the issue. 5. Simple printed conditions on the back of a bill or a consignment note which restricts jurisdiction to only one Court, cannot be a rider on the jurisdiction of another competent Court to entertain the suit. What is required to be seen in an ouster clause of an agreement is, whether the parties were ad idem on the issue. 5. In view of the discussion above, it is evident that the cause of action arose in Delhi apropos the non-supply of Form-C which was a requisite document under the CST Act, therefore, the Delhi courts would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The reasoning for and the conclusion arrived at is a plausible view and does not call for any interference. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.