PURBANCHAL FINANCE CO Vs. MD ABDUL KALAM AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.92 as passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Mangaldoi in Title Suit No. 2/90. The order is a short one, it is reproduced below: "Plaintiff is present with advocate. The learned Advocate Mr. K.K. Mahanta appeared for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and filed petition No. 1822/92 praying for vacating the exparte hearing. Heard the learned Advocate of both the sides. The prayer is allowed subject to payment and cost of Rs.100/-. By petition No. 1824/92, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for hearing on petition No. 1308/92 filed earlier relating to jurisdiction of the Court. This prayer will be considered after filing W/S. Fix 1.12.92 for depositing cost and filing W/S."

(2.) Few basic facts may now be noted. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the defendant petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to take possession of vehicle bearing Registration No. ASD-5923, a truck, but is only entitle to Rs.13,600/- as the balance payable to him and further prayed that the petitioner had no right to transfer the vehicle to defendant No. 4 and for that matter the any one else. The Registration of the vehicle in favour of defendant No. 4 and 4(a) was illegal and inoperative. The petitioner is a firm dealing in motor vehicles purchasing the same on bank finance and let it on respective hires on hire purchase agreement.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of ouster of Court's jurisdiction pursuant to a clause of contract, the trial Court at Mangaldoi had no jurisdiction to try the suit. As such, the trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order as it did. So far as the question of ouster of Court's jurisdiction is concerned, the Supreme Court in ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. - Vs- A.P. Agendies, AIR 1989 SC 1239 has pointed out that: "When the Court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like "alone", "only", "exclusive" and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim "expression unius est exclusio alterius" - expression of one is the exclusion of another - may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an Intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, ipso facto take away jurisdiction of other Courts."