RENOWN BISCUIT CO BOMBAY Vs. KAMALANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in 0. S. No. 1317 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Coimbatore, is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,500 on the basis of the appointment of the plaintiff-respondent as the sole selling distributor for the biscuits manufactured by the petitioner in the Districts of Coimbatore and Nilgiris on 5-7-1961, and on account of the transactions that took place between the parties, the plaintiff-respondent claiming to be entitled to the amount in question. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Munsif, Coinibatore., The petitioner's case was that Cl. 13 of the agreement entered into between the parties contemplated the courts situate in the City of Bombay alone having jurisdiction to entertain any. dispute between the parties. The existence of such a Clause in the agreement is not disputed. Equally, as part of the cause of action arose within the Court of the District Munsiff, Coimbatore, there is no dispute that that court has jurisdiction. In view of this, the petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the fact that in law the Court in Coimbatore has jurisdiction, in view of the agreement entered into between the parties the respondent should have filed the suit only in the court in Bombay, and, therefore, the Court in Coimbatore did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. The learned, District Munsiff held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, therefore, decided the question - of jurisdiction in favour of the - respondent herein. It is this order, which is sought to be revised in the present petition.

(2.) There is no controversy on the following facts (1) The Court in Bombay has jurisdiction, because the petitioner defendant resides in Bombay. (2) The Court in Coimbatore has jurisdiction because a part of the cause of action arose there. (3) The parties, in Clause 13 of the agreement entered into between them, have agreed that no Court other than the Courts in the City of Bombay shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute that may be arising between the parties. In such a context, the general rule is no doubt that the plaintiff-respondent will have to file the suit in the Court in Bombay. However, the Gujarat High Court in M/s. Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. M/s. Economic Transport Organisation had struck --a new path. In pare 3 of. the judgment, it was stated that,

(3.) The matter could be looked at from another, point of view also. What is involved in the present case is not the total want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. But for the contract entered into between the parties, there is no dispute that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned District Munsiff, Coimbatore, will have jurisdiction since a part of the Cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. In such a context when the plaintiff is to be compelled to me a suit in the court of Bombay, it is not because that the Court in Coimbatore did not have jurisdiction in law, but the parties having entered into a contract between them, they am compelled to stick to the terms of the contract. As pointed out by a Bench of this Court in M/s Nanak Chand Shadurain v. Tinnevelly Unicorn Electric Supply Co. Ltd.,