(1.) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.3.2005 contained in Annx.P/1 returning thereby the plaint for want of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) IT is settled law that the objection about jurisdiction for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be decided on the basis of averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto. Copy of plaint is on record as Annx.P/4 which reveals that a suit for recovery of Rs.3,37,292/ - has been instituted by the plaintiff in the Court at Bhopal against the defendant/respondent with the averments that the plaintiff was required to perform the work of Multi -Plas, Aluminium quoting in the house situated at (sic) Raisen @ 269/ - per sq. meter. Plaintiff made a proposal to the defendant on 23.6.1995 which was accepted and the work order was given to the plaintiff on 23.6.1995 for performing the work for quoting of 2500 sq. feet area. According to the agreed rates, the total cost came to be Rs.6,72,500/ - which was inclusive of cost of the material. 80% of the amount was payable at the time of supply of material and the balance was payable on completion of work. The work order was accepted by the plaintiff. Out of the total amount, a sum of Rs.3,94,917/ - was paid. The defendant owed the balance money to the tune of Rs. 2,19,949=75 ps. After issuing a notice, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.3,37,292/ - which is inclusive of interest etc.
(3.) THE defendant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending thereby that Clause No. 10 of the work order confined the jurisdiction to Hyderabad only. Accordingly, it was contended that the Court at Bhopal had no jurisdiction and plaint may be returned to the plaintiff for being filed in the Competent Court. A reply was submitted by the plaintiff that Clause No. 10 was not accepted by it, and hence, the Court at Bhopal has jurisdiction.