ALPHABETICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LOHIA JUTE PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Admit.

(2.) . In a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of certain amount being the price of the goods supplied to the respondent, an objection was taken by the respondent that as per agreement between the parties, printed on the bills submitted by the plaintiff, only courts in Bombay had jurisdiction to try the suit and Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the same. This plea was, however, denied by the plaintiff and it was stated that the conditions printed on the bills did not constitute a binding agreement between the parties and as part of cause of action had accrued in Delhi, the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and also the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement that as per the conditions contained in the bills furnished by the plaintiff/appellant, the Bombay courts alone had jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties, besides framing other issues, also framed an issue as to "whether the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit". The Trial Court, however, did not treat the said issue about territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and directed the parties to lead evidence on all the issues framed by the court. After evidence was led, the trial court held that the conditions mentioned in the bills submitted by the plaintiff clearly showed that the parties had agreed that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction only and consequently the plaintiff could not turn around and say that Delhi courts will also have jurisdiction to try the suit. After holding that in terms of the agreement between the parties, only Bombay courts had jurisdiction to try the suit, the Court directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in proper court. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) . It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since the conditions printed on the bill submitted by the appellant were not signed by the respondent, they did not constitute a binding contract between the parties and the jurisdiction of Delhi courts could not be ousted by such conditions. I am afraid, I am not in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant. The condition that only Bombay Courts would have jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties was incorporated by the appellant itself on its bills. It was thus not open at least to the appellant to turn around and say that the conditions mentioned on the bills were not binding on the appellant. While it may be true that a part of the cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, but when two or more courts have jurisdiction to try a suit, the parties can agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of one of these courts and oust the jurisdiction of other courts. Such an agreement is not against public policy. Since appellant itself had agreed to oust the jurisdiction of Delhi courts by laying down the condition that only Bombay courts would have jurisdiction, in my opinion, the trial court has rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.