PRABHA AGARWAL Vs. TECHNOFAB ENGINEERING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit both the plaintiff and the defendant have taken out two separate motions for two different reliefs as against them. First mentioned motion being G.A. No. 36 of 2002 has been taken out by the plaintiff for pronouncing final Judgment on admission under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the defendant: while the second application being G.A. No. 215 of 2003 has been taken out by the defendant for taking the plaint off the file and/or revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It is for the sake of recording and the recapitulation, it is noted that the plaintiffs application was once disposed of granting relief as prayed for ex parte. However, subsequently on the prayer of the defendant the said ex parte order was recalled.

(2.) Thereafter, the defendant has taken out the aforesaid application for the said relief. Both the applications are heard together. Learned counsel Mr. Banerjee, senior advocate appearing for the defendant submits that the plaintiff concealing the fact that there has been an agreement between the parties selecting the Court for adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties, having obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has instituted the suit in this Court. Such forum selection agreement will be appearing in the clause mentioned in the purchase orders for supply of the insulating materials with the defendant. With the acceptance of the purchase order containing forum selection clause both the parties have agreed that all disputes relating to the sale and supply shall be adjudicated and/or decided by the competent Court at Delhi. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction and the plaint should be taken off and the leave granted by this Court should be revoked.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee for the defendant submits further that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even after filing of written statement. According to him, this High Court has inherently lacked jurisdiction. The choice of either of the two Courts, which have jurisdiction ordinary, is lawful.