SUPER AUTO FORGE PVT LTD Vs. PROTYUSH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-1-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 4-B/2002 by the XVIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur. The suit having been decreed in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 has come before this Court as appellant in this appeal. The facts giving rise of filing of this appeal are summarized hereinafter.

(2.) An agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent No. 1/plaintiff for performing certain duties and rendering certain services to the appellant by the respondent No. 1 in execution of certain tender works, supply of materials, realization of bills etc. The appellant is involved in manufacturing of Cold Forged Precision Components and is registered as a Company under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Chennai (Tamilnadu). The respondent No. 1 was running an agency in the name and style of 'Premier Agency', which was earlier a partnership firm but subsequently was devolved into a proprietary firm of which the respondent No. 1 alone was the owner. The respondent was undertaking the work of agency and liaisoning and for the said purpose, an agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 24-9-1986. There was condition mentioned in the said agreement that the same was for a period of five years. The period of agreement came to an end on 28-4-1991 and since thereafter no further agreement was executed in between the parties. Certain demands were made by the respondent with respect to the payment of his commission/fees/service charges, which were not accepted by the appellant and, therefore, a suit was required to he filed for rendition of the account. A specific plea was made in the plaint with respect to such conduct, discharge of functions of the respondent and prayer was made in the plaint to the following effect :

(3.) The appellant resisted the claim made by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and earlier filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the Court at Jabalpur was having no jurisdiction in view of the specific agreement executed in between the appellant and respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court passed an order and returned the plaint as not maintainable at Jabalpur. The respondent No. 1 was required to file a miscellaneous appeal against such an order before this Court and this miscellaneous appeal having been allowed, the suit was restored. However, this Court specifically ordered that in case the defendant, that means the appellant herein, raises objection in its pleadings regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the same may be considered on merits and decided in accordance with law by the trial Court. The written statement was filed by the appellant categorically contending that since the agreement dated 29-4-1986 specifically contains the condition that the jurisdiction of any other Court will be barred and except the Court at Madras, the Courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain any claims with respect to the aforesaid agreement or arising out of work performed under the aforesaid agreement, therefore, the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The other objections raised by the appellant was that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation as the period for which the rendition of account was claimed, was not specifically mentioned in the prayer. It was also contended that the claims made by the respondent/plaintiff were all frivolous. The suit was, thus, liable to be dismissed. After filing of the written statement, the trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and as the appellant has not produced any witness, proceeded to decide the suit of the respondent No. 1. The trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent No. 1 by passing a decree, therefore, this appeal has been preferred.