S MANUEL RAJ Vs. J MANILAL AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the original defendants. the plaintiffs placed an order on a printed form of the defendants on which it was printed in bold types Subject to Madras Jurisdiction. An order form was signed by the plaintiffs and sent to the defendants. The learned Judge of Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad rejected the contention of the defendants that only the Madras Court had jurisdiction and decreed the suit. Therefore the original defendants have now come to this Court in revision. The main contention urged by them is that only the Madras Court has jurisdiction in view of the fact that the order form signed by the plaintiffs contains in bold types Subject to Madras jurisdiction and it is also underlined in print. This contention must be accepted because when the order form signed by the plaintiffs contains in bold types the words Subject to Madras Jurisdiction it must be taken that the plaintiffs agreed to the term that only the Madras Court must have jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned counsel for the opponents contends that the words Subject to Madras Jurisdiction do not mean that the Madras Court alone has jurisdiction. He also contends that the finding that the Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered in revision. He relies on Amritsar Transport Co. Ltd. v. S. Sohanlal A.I.R. 1957 Jammu & Kashmir 7 M/s. Patel Bros. v. M/s. Vadilal A.I.R. 1959 Madras 227 and on sec. 3 of the Indian Contract Act. In A. I. R. 1957 Jammu & Kashmir 7 there was a receipt which was signed by one of the parties and the party who signed the receipt relied on the receipt to show that only the Courts of a particular place had jurisdiction But the receipt which was relied on by him was not signed by the opposite party but had been merely given to the opposite party. Therefore that case does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the Madras case which is strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the opponents it was held that the words Subject to Bombay jurisdiction printed on a document which evidenced the contract did not exclude the jurisdiction of any other Court and that ouster of jurisdiction of a Court to which a person is entitled to resort to under the C. P. Code or any other statute cannot be a matter of assumption or presumption but one to be proved by express words contained in the contract or atleast by necessary or inevitable implication The learned Judge there held that mere printing of the words Subject to Bombay jurisdiction on the document which evidenced the contract cannot amount to a contract that both the parties agreed to have Bombay as the venue for the settlement of disputes. The question whether parties to contract can select one of the two Courts having jurisdiction has not been argued.

(3.) When one of the parties to a contract signs a printed form printed by the other party containing the words subject to the jurisdiction of a place Q and sends the order form to the other party it must be assumed that that party agreed that Q is the place for the settlement of disputes. It is not open to a person who signs an order form of the opposite party containing the printed words to say that the printed words are not part of the contract. To take the view taken by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court would be to upset the commercial practice of India and unless such a position is necessary in view of the wording of any particular section I am not prepared to take that view. I am not prepared to upset the commercial practice of India unless the last required me to do so. There is nothing in the law to hold that the expression Subject to jurisdiction of Q printed at the top of a form may not bind M who signed the order form.