MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA PVT LTD Vs. KISHAN TRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/applicant feels aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court whereunder an application filed by it under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code, for return of the plaint has been dismissed holding that the consent of the parties cannot oust the jurisdiction of a court to try a suit if under the law the said court is vested with such a jurisdiction.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-defendant as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff, and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit out of which the present revision has arisen praying for a declaratory 'decree declaring the letter dated 1st February, 1996, issued by the defendant whereby the plaintiff's dealership had been terminated to be illegal and legally ineffective. The plaintiff had further prayed for a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from prohibiting or interfering with continuance of the plaintiff's business as a dealer of Mahindra Tractors. This suit had been filed on the allegations that the plaintiff had been appointed as a dealer by the defendant under a 'Dealership Agreement' which had been executed in Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh. It had been further alleged that the letter dated 1st of February, 1996, terminating the dealership of the plaintiff had been received by the plaintiff at Shivpuri, therefore, the cause of action for the suit had arisen at Shivpuri where he was carrying on his business as a dealer of Mahindra Tractors manufactured by the defendant,