SOMYA SALWAN Vs. NEESA LEISURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.9.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff by holding that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction. Trial court has held that jurisdiction will be of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat because of existence of such a jurisdictional clause in the two subject purchase orders placed upon the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent/defendant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that with respect to the interior works of the respondent/defendant to be done at two premises in Delhi, the respondent/defendant placed two purchase orders upon the appellant/plaintiff. The two Purchase Orders are dated 19.8.2008 and which have been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Both these purchase orders placed by the respondent/defendant upon the appellant/plaintiff contained a clause that the territorial jurisdiction will be of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that no doubt the purchase orders mention jurisdiction of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat, however it is argued that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction otherwise. It is argued that courts at Gujarat did not have jurisdiction because whole or part of cause of action has not accrued at Gandhinagar in Gujarat. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 and which holds that essentially four courts will have jurisdiction i.e either where the contract is executed or where the contract is to be performed or where the payment under the contract has to be made or where the defendant resides.