NILESH H DOSHI Vs. G P PHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 16.10.2000 in I.A.No.718 of 1999 in O.S.No.311 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 3rd defendant, who is the petitioner in I.A.No.718 of 1999 is the revision petitioner. The plaintiffs are the respondents 1 & 2. The defendants 1 and 2, who were set ex parte in the suit are not made parties to this Revision Petition. I shall refer the parties as plaintiffs and 3rd defendant for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for determination of the issue involved in this revision petition are as follows: The plaintiffs filed O.S.No-311 of 1997 seeking a decree against defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,77,799/- alleged to be due from the defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The defendant No.3 filed t.A.No.718 of 1999 under Order 14, Rule 2 read with Order 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to return the plaint for presenting before the proper Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition it is stated that the suit has been filed on the basis of an agreement said to have been entered on 19.7.1995 between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and as per Clause 12 of the said agreement all the disputes between the parties are subject to Pune jurisdiction and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Accordingly the 3rd defendant contended that it is necessary either to return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court at Pune or in the alternative the suit shall be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(3.) The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. In the counter it was stated that under the letter-cum-agreement dated 19.7.1995 the 1st plaintiff was appointed as Super distributor for the products or the defendant No.1 in the districts of Mahabubnagar, Kurnool and Anatapur. The said agreement was executed at Hyderabad and was delivered to the 1st plaintiff at Hyderabad. Thus the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Hyderabad. Further since the 1st defendant-Company has its branch office at Hyderabad and since the entire transaction was routed through the said branch office i.e., 2nd defendant, the objection raised by the defendant No.3 as to the jurisdiction of the Court at Hyderabad is unsustainable.