(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dibrugarh in Money Suit No. 13 of 2002 rejecting the plea of the revision petitioner/ defendant No. 1 regarding the jurisdiction of the said court and by holding that the said court has jurisdiction to try the suit
(2.) A suit being Money Suit No. 13 of 2002 was instituted by the present opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff against the present revision petitioner as defendant and the resent opposite party No. 2 as proforma defendant, in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), at Dibrugarh on 22.1.2002 for realization of a sum of Rs. 24,07,364/- together with interest at the rate of 19% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, on the basis of the agreement dated 1.4.96 and 30.4.97 executed between the revision petitioner and the present opposite party No. 1. The revision petitioner on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement wherein a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the said court was taken on the ground that the parties have attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the province of Alberta, Canada to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts and also by taking an alternative stand that as neither registered office nor the branch office of the defendant revision petitioner being within the jurisdiction of the Dibrugarh Court, the said court has no territorial jurisdiction. It has further been contended that there is no project within the territorial jurisdiction of Dibrugarh Court and the branch office of the defendant revision petitioner being in Gurgaon, Haryana and the registered office of the plaintiff being at New Delhi as well as all the invoices having been raised by the plaintiff from New Delhi and all payments also having been made at New Delhi, the court at Dibrugarh has no jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the suit. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dibrugarth thereafter upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties by the impugned order dated 22.5.2002 rejected the plea taken by the revision petitioner/defendant regarding the jurisdiction of the said court by hold ing that the clause regarding the jurisdiction of the court contained in the agreement dated 30.4.1997 executed between the parties cannot take away the jurisdiction vested by law in any court and also cannot divest the court of its inherent jurisdiction to try the disputes arising out of the agreement as it would be against the public policy. It has further been held that the jurisdiction of any court is conferred by the statute and it can only be taken away by the statute as provided in Section 28 off the Contract Act and the agreement between the parties is hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act as it does not permit the parties to oust the jurisdiction of the Court by agreement, if, otherwise, the court has jurisdiction in the matter, which would be against the public policy if the parties by agreement can oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Hence the present revision petition.
(3.) I have heard Ms. Usha Baruah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. None appears for the opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice.