JUDGMENT 1. The Court : Two applications are taken up for hearing analogously as they are in the same suit. 2. In a suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff seeks final decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. The defendant questions the jurisdiction of this Honble Court to receive the suit. The defendant seeks revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and return of the plaint. 3. In such factual conspectus it would be appropriate to decide the application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 first. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that, the parties agreed to the jurisdiction of Allahabad only. She refers to the letter dated August 25, 2003 written by the defendant to the plaintiff and the response thereto of the plaintiff being the letter dated August 30, 2003. She submits that, by the letter dated August 25, 2003 the defendant stated at Clause 17 thereof that, for purposes of all disputes the jurisdiction will be at Allahabad only. In response thereof the plaintiff by the letter dated August 30, 2003 did not raise any objection to such clause although the plaintiff informed the defendant of the objection of the plaintiff as to other clauses in the letter dated August 25, 2003. She relies upon 2019 SCC OnLine SC 337 (Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Anr.) and submits that, since, the forum selection clause is clear, the Court should revoke leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. She relies on AIR 2014 Cal 138 (Hindusthan Construction & Commercial Corporation v. Union of India) for the proposition that when there is an unambiguous forum selection clause in the contract, then leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 shall be revoked. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the jural relationship between the parties commenced from 2001. At that point of time the parties did not agree to any forum selection clause. In fact, it is not the case of the defendant to be so. The letters dated August 25, 2003 and August 30, 2003 cannot be construed to be a binding contract between the parties or to have introduced a forum selection clause governing the relationship between the parties. In fact, it is not the case of the defendant to be so. The letters dated August 25, 2003 and August 30, 2003 cannot be construed to be a binding contract between the parties or to have introduced a forum selection clause governing the relationship between the parties. The forum selection clause is not attracted in the facts of the present case. 6. In Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. (supra) leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was revoked by the Trial Court for want of territorial jurisdiction without requiring the defendant to file written statement and without permitting the parties to adduce evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was revoked on the application of the defendant. Such revocation was affirmed by the Division Bench on appeal. The Supreme Court, however, found that a plea of territorial jurisdiction to be essentially a mixed question of law and fact. Consequently, the defendants in the suit were allowed to raise the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the written statement to enable the Court to try it on its merits in accordance with law in the light of the requirements of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other relevant provisions governing the issue on merits. 7. In Hindusthan Construction & Commercial Corporation (supra) the Court found the forum selection clause to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. 8. Consequently, the application for return of the plaint was disposed of by holding that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the parties were having a jural relationship since 2001. In course of the transactions the parties exchanged letters dated August 25, 2003 and August 30, 2003. The letter dated August 25, 2003 contains a clause with regard to jurisdiction. Such clause is as follows:- '17. For purposes of all disputes the jurisdiction will be at Allahabad only.' 9. In response to such letter dated August 25, 2003 the plaintiff by its letter dated August 30, 2003 raised contentions with regard to Clauses 1 and 3 of the letter dated August 25, 2003. The letter dated August 30, 2003 also states that, the plaintiff is ready to accept the terms and conditions which are currently in force for their other publications. 10. The letter dated August 30, 2003 also states that, the plaintiff is ready to accept the terms and conditions which are currently in force for their other publications. 10. The scope and effect of the letters dated August, 25, 2003 and August 30, 2003 with regard to the so-called forum selection is required to be construed. Such construction should be done after the parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. It would be inappropriate to decide on the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the defendant on the basis of affidavit evidence as obtaining in the present application, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to receive the suit is kept open to be decided at trial. 11. So far as the other application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules is concerned, since, there is an issue of jurisdiction which is yet to be decided, it would not be appropriate to pass a final decree in the suit on the basis of affidavit evidence. 12. In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to extend the time to file the written statement by the defendant within a period of fortnight from date. 13. G.A. No. 2572 of 2019 and G.A. No. 2481 of 2019 stand disposed of without any order as to costs.