ORDER 1. By this revision petition the defendants have challenged part of the order of the trial Court dated 6.3.2017, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that trial Court had no jurisdiction, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 50 of the agreement dated 1.10.2003 exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Courts at Bhopal, therefore, the present suit at the instance of the respondent at Sendhwa, District Barwani is not maintainable. He has further referred to the plea of the respondent in Writ Petition No.2138/2010 recorded in order dated 13.2.2014 and in Writ Appeal No.354/2014 recorded in order dated 20.7.2015 and has submitted that the dispute is in respect of the agreement dated 1.10.2003 only. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the order dated 24.9.2014 passed in Arbitration Case No.3/2014, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2013)9 SCC 32 and in the matter of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. M/s. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 607. 3. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that only plaint allegations are required to be considered and as per the plaint allegations the grievance of the petitioner is not in respect of the agreement dated 1.10.2003 but the cause of action is based upon subsequent agreement and that the property is situated at Sendhwa, therefore, suit for declaration and injunction has properly been filed at Sendhwa in terms of section 16(d) read with section 20 of the CPC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is the settled position in law that while deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC, only the plaint averments are required to be looked into. A minute perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondent had taken the specific plea in the plaint that the contract in pursuance to the agreement dated 1.10.2003 had come to an end and the contract was subsequently renewed on the basis of the letter issued in the year 2006, which was sent by the petitioner-company. A minute perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondent had taken the specific plea in the plaint that the contract in pursuance to the agreement dated 1.10.2003 had come to an end and the contract was subsequently renewed on the basis of the letter issued in the year 2006, which was sent by the petitioner-company. The cause of action for filing of the suit as per Para-11 of the plaint arose on 21.2.2017 when the petitioner had sent the notice dated 6.2.2017 through email. The dispute is about the outlet which as per the plaint averment is situated at Village Gawadi, Tahsil Newali, District Barwani and the suit is for declaring the notice dated 16.2.2017 as null and void and injuncting the petitioner from taking possession of the retail outlet. 6. The plea objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Sendhwa, District Barwani has been raised by the petitioner on the basis of Clause 50 of the agreement dated 1.10.2003 but as per the plaint averment, the said agreement has already come to an end and the claim of the respondent is based upon the subsequent contract. 7. The trial Court in the impugned order has examined this aspect of the matter in detail and has noted that the agreement dated 1.10.2003 had come to an end on 24.3.2008, whereas the notice under challenge in the suit was issued on 6.2.2017. The trial Court had also noted that the agreement dated 1.10.2003 was for a period of one year, whereas in the year 2006 the petitioner after taking interview of the respondent, had renewed the contract and the communication was entered into for sending the duly signed renew agreement. It has also been noted that after termination of the agreement dated 1.10.2003 in the year 2008, the petitioner had issued the notice in the year 2017 without mentioning the fresh policy. Since the petitioner could not point out from the plaint averment that the jurisdiction of the civil Court at Sendhwa where the outlet which was subject matter of the suit was located, had no territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the prayer made in the application has been rejected. 8. So far as the order in the case of Mrs. Since the petitioner could not point out from the plaint averment that the jurisdiction of the civil Court at Sendhwa where the outlet which was subject matter of the suit was located, had no territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the prayer made in the application has been rejected. 8. So far as the order in the case of Mrs. Archana Dekhne v. M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. passed in A.C. No.3/2014 dated 24.9.2014 relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case the undisputed agreement itself contained the clause conferring jurisdiction to the Courts at New Delhi, where part of cause of action had arisen but in the present case the trial Court has already found that the agreement dated 1.10.2003 containing the exclusive jurisdiction clause had already come to an end and superseded by the fresh contract. Same is the position in respect of the judgment in the case of Swastik Gases Private Limited (supra), and Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra), relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. Hence no benefit of the said judgments can be granted. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no patent illegality has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the petitioner’s application. Even otherwise the scope of interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC is limited. Since the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court, therefore, no case for interference in the present revision petition is made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Yogesh Kumar Mittal for petitioners; V.K. Jain with Vaibhav Jain for respondent.