JUDGMENT : G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.239 of 2009 in O.S.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur thereby, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of plaint. 2. The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 4 in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the District Court, Karur. The respondent filed the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent is a company incorporated as a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the manufacture of Home Textile Made Ups and is a leading industry in Tamil Nadu. It also exports the materials to abroad and for that purpose, transacts in foreign currency. It also imports both machineries and raw materials for the purpose of their business and in that process also foreign exchange transactions are entered into. In this process, the company is open to the vagaries of foreign currency in so far as it relates to fluctuations in foreign currency rates in respect of export receivable and import payables. In order to safeguard its interest, it used to get safeguards from the banks by hedging their trade exposures. Accordingly, the Board has passed a resolution for entering into derivative contracts for the purpose of hedging the exposures in foreign currency. Therefore, the respondent authorised two signatories consisting of the Directors and the Head (Finance) any two of them. As per the resolution, dated 02.01.2007, the first defendant was authorised to sign all forex related agreements (including forward contract and derivatives) with specified Banks on behalf of the company subject to a maximum amount of US dollars. As per the resolution, the first defendant is empowered to enter into a contract for the purpose of hedging and that too, with a ceiling limit of USD dollar 1 million per contract. While being so, the petitioner has an export turn over of Rs.224 Crores for the year ending 31.3.2007. It also had imported goods and machineries for their units to the tune of approximately Rs.15 crores. In the course of business, in order to manage its foreign exchange dealings in a proper and a prudent manner, the respondent engaged in hedging against the risk of fluctuating values of foreign currencies. It also had imported goods and machineries for their units to the tune of approximately Rs.15 crores. In the course of business, in order to manage its foreign exchange dealings in a proper and a prudent manner, the respondent engaged in hedging against the risk of fluctuating values of foreign currencies. It is regulated by the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (herein after called as FEMA Act). As per the resolution, any contract beyond the limit of 1 Million US dollars should be countersigned by the Directors, who had attested the resolution to the Bank. Accordingly, it entered into the ISDA standard agreement on 25.07.2005. The petitioners had entered into those contracts for the sole purpose of hedging the underlying. The respondent has never authorized anyone to deal without a clear underlying in respect of the derivative transactions. All the transactions are clearly done with an underlying excepting the one which is under dispute which is totally not connected with the business and entered into by the first defendant without any authority. This particular transaction namely Contract No. OP. 98390, 98391, 98392 and 98393, dated 14.6.2007 are totally an exotic transaction that too, dealing in respect of the fluctuation of US dollar and Swiss Franc with misrepresentations and false promises. Therefore, the contract itself is contrary to law and is void. The FEMA Act is relating to Foreign exchange and was enacted with the objective of promoting the orderly development and management of the foreign exchange market in India. As per Regulation 3 of FEMA, no person in India shall enter into a foreign exchange derivative contract without the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, the respondent at the time of entering into a contract or even thereafter, had no relevant underlying exports to hedge the contract. Therefore, the respondent filed a suit with the following prayers:- “1) For the relief of declaration that the deal confirmation of U.S. dollar V/s Swiss Franc structure, dated 14.06.2007 in OP contract Nos.98390, 98391, 98392 and 98393 with the schedule thereon purportedly by the CFO on behalf of the plaintiff with the defendant is void ab-initio, illegal, in violation of RBI Guideline, opposed to public policy and un enforceable and not binding on the plaintiff company; and or alternatively (2) to declare that the deal confirmation of U.S. Dollar V/s Swiss Franc contract, dated 14.06.2007 in OP. contract No.98390, 98391, 98392 and 98393 with the schedule thereon purportedly by the CFO on behalf of the plaintiff with the defendant Bank is voidable at the instance of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has therefore avoided the contract and therefore the contract is not binding or enforceable against the plaintiff. (3) For the relief to declare that in the alternatives to prayers (a) and (b), the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Contract is ultra vires the object Clause of the Memorandum of Association of the Plaintiff and is, therefore, not binding upon the Plaintiff and/or is not enforceable against the Plaintiff. (4) Consequently, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents or servants or anyone claiming under them from in any way acting in furtherance of the contract in OP No. 98390, 98391, 98392 and 98393, dated 14.06.2007 with the schedule thereon by initiating any proceedings for recovering any amount from the plaintiff or seeking for recovery of any amount from the plaintiff under the contract or initiating NPA proceedings and or initiating any measures or proceedings to recover any amount from the plaintiff under the contract, and pass such further and other orders as the Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 5) Directing the defendants 2 to 4 to pay the suit amount of Rs.37,55,000/- being the amount recovered from the current A/C.no.607205019386 of the plaintiff in the Karur Branch along with interest at 12% p.a., 6) To award cost of the suit. 7) To award such further and other reliefs as the Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” Along with suit, the respondent also filed an application in I.A.No.38 of 2008 for injunction restraining the petitioners herein acting in furtherance of the contract in O.P.No.98390 to 98393, dated 14.6.2007 by initiating any proceedings for recovering any amount from the respondent herein or initiating non-performing assets proceedings or seeking for recovery of any amount from the respondent under the contract. 3. The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances, granted an interim injunction in favor of the respondent herein. 3. The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances, granted an interim injunction in favor of the respondent herein. While pending the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application in I.A.No.239 of 2009 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 rules 10 and 11 read with section 151 of CPC. The Trial Court, after full-fledged enquiry, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the civil revision petition itself becomes infructuous on the ground that as against the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in I.A.No.38 of 2008 in O.S.No.10 of 2008, dated 23.06.2010, the petitioners preferred an appeal before this Court in C.M.A(MD).No.38 of 2011 and obtained an order of interim of stay in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011, dated 19.01.2011. On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners made an application in O.A.No. 46 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - III at Mumbai for recovery of a sum Rs.15,67,25,926.05 (Rupess Fifteen crores Sixty Seven lakhs Twenty five thousand Nine hundred Twenty Six and Five paise Only) on the basis of the contracts which were under challenge in O.S.No.10 of 2008. Though the respondent filed a written statement, thereafter, did not contest the application in O.A.No.46 of 2011. Therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai, by an order dated 18.02.2016, allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,25,926.05/- with simple interest at the rate of 12.00 % per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e., on 21.01.2011 till the realisation. Further, if the respondent fails to pay the said amount, all the available modes of recovery may be adopted under RDDB & FI Act, for recovery of debt due. Therefore, already agreements were acted upon and the suit itself becomes infructuous. He further submits that on the strength of the interim stay granted in M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A(MD)No.38 of 2011, the petitioners had filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -III and it was also allowed and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal becomes infructuous. 5. Therefore, already agreements were acted upon and the suit itself becomes infructuous. He further submits that on the strength of the interim stay granted in M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A(MD)No.38 of 2011, the petitioners had filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -III and it was also allowed and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal becomes infructuous. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A(MD)No.38 of 2011, the petitioners made an application for recovery on the strength of the Contract No.OP. 98390 to 98393, dated 14.06.2007. The very contract itself is under challenge in the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the District Court, Karur for declaration and injunction. Therefore, if the contract is declared as void ab-initio, the petitioners cannot make any recovery on the strength of those contracts. When the main suit is pending and on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners, in a short cut method, have filed an application for recovery under those contracts. Therefore, though the recovery was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the very challenge of contracts cannot be construed as infructuous. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the suit is very much alive and prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. Admittedly, the respondent filed a suit challenging the contracts on various grounds for the prayer of declaration and injunction. The respondent also obtained an interim injunction restraining the petitioners from making any recovery on the strength of the contracts dated 14.06.2007. It was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in C.M.A(MD)No.38 of 2011 and an interim order of stay was obtained by an order, dated 19.01.2011. On the strength of the interim stay, the petitioners in a hurried manner filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai for recovery of Rs.15,67,25,926.05/-under the contracts, dated 14.06.2007, which are under challenge by the respondent in O.S.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the District Court, Karur. On the strength of the interim stay, the petitioners in a hurried manner filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai for recovery of Rs.15,67,25,926.05/-under the contracts, dated 14.06.2007, which are under challenge by the respondent in O.S.No.10 of 2008, on the file of the District Court, Karur. Though the petitioners obtained an order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai, dated 18.02.2016, till today, the petitioners did not take any steps to execute the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai. Further, at the time of admitting the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P(MD)No.95 of 2011, this Court has granted an interim stay, therefore, the Trial Court did not proceed with the suit. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that though the petitioners made an application for recovery under contracts dated 14.06.2007, the very execution of contracts itself is under challenge with the prayer of declaration. If the respondent succeeds before the Civil Court in the suit for declaration declaring that those contracts are void ab-initio, illegal, in violation of Reserve Bank of India Guideline, opposed to public policy and non-enforceable and not binding on the respondent company, the recovery ordered on the basis of those contracts has no legs to stand further. Therefore, the suit filed by the respondent is specific and suit cannot be become infructuous. On perusal of the averments of the plaint, the respondent made several allegations as against the petitioners to declare those contracts 14.06.2007 as null and void. 8. The petitioners filed an application for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.239 of 2009 in O.S.No.10 of 2008 mainly on the ground that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code inter-alia provides that the plaintiff shall institute the suit in a Court within the local limits where the defendants actually carry on business or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The petitioners are in no way connected with the present case or the cause of action whatsoever. The fourth defendant alone is involved in the matter. The corporate office of the fourth defendant is situated in Mumbai, within the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay and the appropriate Court of jurisdiction is therefore, the High Court of Bombay. The petitioners are in no way connected with the present case or the cause of action whatsoever. The fourth defendant alone is involved in the matter. The corporate office of the fourth defendant is situated in Mumbai, within the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay and the appropriate Court of jurisdiction is therefore, the High Court of Bombay. The very contracts under which, the transaction has been entered into i.e., Section 13(b) of ISDA Master Agreement provides that the Courts at Mumbai will have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to disputes arising out of or in relation to the ISDA Master Agreement. Further, the said agreement was executed by the fourth defendant at its office at Mumbai. All of the agreement / or the derivative transactions were from the fourth defendant office in Mumbai. Therefore, the trial Court namely the District Court, Karur has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the respondent. 9. The cause of action shall arise for the respondent to initiate the suit in the place where the respondent has its current account with the second defendant. All the transactions including the disputed transactions had taken place at Karur. Negotiation for entering into ISDA Agreement dated 25.07.2005 were carried out with the officials attached to the second defendant. The ISDA Agreement was executed by the respondent only at Karur. Further, the second defendant had debited Rs.2,84,67,450/- on 17.03.2008 to the current account of the respondent at Karur. Further, the second defendant had debited a sum of Rs.4,31,95,000/- on 19.03.2008 to the current account of the respondent at Karur. The ISDA agreement dated 25.07.2005 specifically provides that nothing in this agreement precludes either party from bringing proceedings in any other Court, tribunal or appropriate forum in India. It also provides that bringing of proceedings in any one or more jurisdictions will not preclude proceedings being brought in any other jurisdiction. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to bring any proceedings to any other Court in India. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.239 of 2009 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 10. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 10. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12. The District Court, Karur is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2008 and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.