JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. This City Civil Court Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the CPC by the appellant/defendant aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 passed in OS No.18 of 2016 by the XII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “learned trial Court.”), wherein the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.17,00,000/- with cost against the defendant No.1 along with interest @ 12 % per annum on outstanding amount. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that there is agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, that defendant No.1 will transport the 315 MVA transformer main body from TELK Angamally to Nagada and Katni Sub-stations of MPPTCL, Madhya Pradesh. Defendant No.2 is a banker who issued bank guaranteed on behalf of plaintiff to defendant No.1, as per the agreement, vide Bank Guarantee No.BG No.021GT 0212203003, dated 23.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs. As per e-mail dated 09.08.2014, the plaintiff was asked to placed one heavy 14 Axes Hydraulic Trailer along with all document, in reply plaintiff seeks time as the load requirement come to 180 metric tones which falls under HT 6 category 2 and that on account of guidelines dated 20.05.2014 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport High Ways (hereinafter referred as ‘MORTH’) a sum of Rs.2,000/- is to paid for every 50 KMs and that the Maximum time for issuing of permission for HT 4 to HT 6 is 90 days and it would take around 30 to 45 days time by paying requisite fee. The defendant No.1 by communication dated 14.08.2014 informed that 28.08.2014 was not acceptable to place Axels and as per their terms, trailer has to be placed within 7 days of their confirmation mail and that the delivery should be made within 45 days from the date of lading and insisting the plaintiff to place the trailer on 20.08.2014 itself and further stated that defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the guidelines of MORTH. On 14.10.2014, the plaintiff sent email to defendant No.1 stating that the charges for MORTH is Rs.82,000/- and the plaintiff will get permission within 30 days and thereafter the plaintiff can place Axels and the transit time will be 45 days. On 14.10.2014, the plaintiff sent email to defendant No.1 stating that the charges for MORTH is Rs.82,000/- and the plaintiff will get permission within 30 days and thereafter the plaintiff can place Axels and the transit time will be 45 days. Subsequently, defendant No.1 enchased bank guarantee without giving reasonable time to the plaintiff. 4. On 23.10.2024, the plaintiff informed the 1 st defendant by email that 14 Axels and 520 Volvo was on the way to Angamalli and it would reached on 25.10.2014. On 26.12.2014, the defendant No.1 communicated that the plaintiff has to submit bank guarantee @ 10% of contract value as security deposit and until then they cannot load transformer on the Axels. Prior to that, on 24.12.2014, the plaintiff informed to the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff was willing to provide bank guarantee after deducting halting charges, i.e., 20,000/- per day for detention of Axels from 25.10.2014 to 24.12.2014 to a tune of amount of Rs.12 Lakhs. Since, the defendant No.1 is liable for to pay Rs.12 Lakhs, hence there was no necessity to insist to furnish bank guarantee for 10% of the value of the contract. The defendant No.1 failed to load the transformer without paying detention charges and the defendant No.1 is liable to pay bank guarantee amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. The defendant No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the acceptance dated 10.01.2014. 5. Before the trial Court, defendant No.1 appeared and engaged an advocate. Later, the defendant No.1 has failed to file written statement and on 30.08.2016, the defendant No.1 was set ex parte and thereafter no steps was taken to file an application to set aside the ex parte order. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and stated that no relief is claimed against defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 is a formal party to the suit and defendant No.2 is not aware about disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. 6. Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum payable by the defendant No.1 towards the value of loss incurred by the plaintiff including value of bank guarantee bearing No.021G102122030003, dated 21.07.2012 issued by the 2 nd defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for claim? 3. To what relief? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum payable by the defendant No.1 towards the value of loss incurred by the plaintiff including value of bank guarantee bearing No.021G102122030003, dated 21.07.2012 issued by the 2 nd defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for claim? 3. To what relief? 7. After hearing both sides and going into the merits of the case and evaluating the entire evidences on record, the trial Court partly allowed and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.17,00,000/- with cost against the defendant No.1 along with interest @ 12 % per annum on outstanding amount. 8. Heard Ms. G.Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Shyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed on the ground that there is suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and any dispute arising between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in terms of clause 4.23 which clearly states that “Any legal claim arising out of this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam” and the Trial Court is not having jurisdiction to pass such order. The plaintiff ought to have filed suit, if any, against the defendant No.1 under the jurisdiction of the Courts of High Court of Kerala, Ernakula. As such, ignoring the jurisdiction clause and filing the suit in Secunderabad, State of Telangana by the plaintiff is bad in law and consequently the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court has to be treated as non est in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 contended that appellant has breach the terms of contract of work order No.MK/6412/13/QTN/BR/3294, DATED 30.1.2013 and failed to arrange/transport two transformers to Nagda and Katni site an also failed to arrange the Trailer within minimum 14 Axles necessary to transport 315 MVA Transformer from TELK, Angamaly to various site of MPPTCL 400 KV Substation as per clause 2 of the said contract. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contended that plaintiff having agreed to deliver transformer to M/s.MPPTCL, 400 KV Substation site, Katni Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh State as per their mail dated 18.09.2014, however delayed on the alleged ground of MORTH and took time unilaterally. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contended that plaintiff having agreed to deliver transformer to M/s.MPPTCL, 400 KV Substation site, Katni Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh State as per their mail dated 18.09.2014, however delayed on the alleged ground of MORTH and took time unilaterally. Though several emails dated 18.09.2014, 08.10.2014, 10.10.2014, 16.10.2014, 20.10.2014 and finally on 24.12.2014 were given to the plaintiff, the same were ignored which is evident that there is specific recital that the plaintiff failed to placed the Trailer on 20.10.2014 and extended time to time. And have breach the terms of the contract by the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contended that the Trial Court failed to noticed that the delay was caused by the plaintiff and under the guise of obtaining permission under MORTH Rules the plaintiff has delayed the placing of trailer with axles and the entire correspondence and communication were not disclosed by the plaintiff in fair manner and only certain picked and chose were placed before the Trial Court for their convenience to obtain an ex-parte decree and judgment which is not fair and unsustainable. 13. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submits that after considering the evidence available on record, the Trial Court has rightly entitled for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest towards the value of loss incurred by the plaintiff including value of bank guarantee bearing, dated 21.07.2012. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further contended that plaintiff has communicated to the defendant No.1 under email dated 13.08.2014 that they will place Axels on 28.08.2014 subject to permission by MORTH and the permission fee will be reimbursed by the defendant No.1. The 1st defendant asked the plaintiff under email to place Axels earlier at least on 20.08.2014 and that the plaintiff confirmed the same by email dated 13.08.2014 and on 14.08.2014, the plaintiff communicated to the defendant No.1 that the order was issue to them on 10.01.2014. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to delay of more than six months meanwhile MORTH guidelines have come into force from 20.05.2014 which changes the cost involved and they had communicated to placed, Axel on 28.08.2014 subject to condition that the transit period of 45 days and prayed this Court to dismiss the instant appeal. 16. 16. Basing on the grounds and averments made in the affidavit and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the point which arose for consideration in this appeal are that 1. Whether the appellant has made out any ground to set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad? 2. Whether the Appellant/Defendant is entitled to relief as claim for? 3. If so what relief? Point Nos.1 & 2 17. On the material on record, it is evidently clear that the judgment passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court is a ex-parte judgment, except the oral averments made by the appellant, there are no grounds of the appellant to put up their case in their defense. Admittedly, defendant No.1 did not choose to contest nor have taken any steps to set-aside the ex parte order and did not participate in the suit. On detail perusal of trial Court order dated, 17.12.2018, the defendant No.1 has engaged an advocate. On 30.08.2016, as there was no representation and as the defendant No.1 failed to file written statement, the defendant No.1 was set ex parte. Thereafter, defendant No.1 did not turn up to take steps to file an application to set aside the ex-parte order. 18. The trial Court without having any option but has to accept the contention made by learned counsel for the plaintiff and passed the judgment in favor of plaintiff. In this regard, there should be strong and cogent reasons for not participating and contesting the matter and rebutting the allegations made by the respondents/plaintiff, in absence of any pleadings, this Court is also cannot grant relief to the appellant/defendant. 19. In the present suit also there is no documentary evidence or averments in the appeal except stating the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Prima Facie on perusal of entire record, there is nothing to reject the claim of the plaintiff, so also there is no case made out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant in respect of lack of competency and jurisdiction of the learned XII additional Chief Judge. Prima Facie on perusal of entire record, there is nothing to reject the claim of the plaintiff, so also there is no case made out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant in respect of lack of competency and jurisdiction of the learned XII additional Chief Judge. The defendant No.1 did not choose to cross examine the plaintiff to prove their claim in the Trial Court, in the absence of any rebuttal pleadings or any rebuttal evidence put forth by the respondent/ plaintiff before the trial Court and in the absence of any such plea, relief sought by the appellant/defendant cannot be granted before this Court. 20. Prima facie, on considering the entire material on record and the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff/respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/respondent has substantiated his claim by placing all the evidence and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed by the Defendant No.1/petitioner to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. Even, there is no pleadings been pointed out by the Defendant No.1/petitioner before this Court to disprove the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. 21. Hence, this Court do not see any grounds to interfere with the said findings of the judgment passed by the Trial Court. As such, the appeal filed by the appellants falls to the ground. Hence, point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly. Point No.3 22. In the result, the City Civil Court Appeal deserved to be and accordingly dismissed. The Judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 passed in OS No.18 of 2016 by the XII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad is confirmed by this Court. 23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.