Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the decision of an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the courts of Varanasi to entertain an application Under Sec. 20 of the; Indian Arbitration Act for referring the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the contract entered into by the parties.
(2.) In defence, Clause 13 of the contract was relied upon to sustain the plea that courts at Bombay alone had jurisdiction. Clause 13 reads thus: Notwithstanding the place where the work under this contract is to be executed it is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that this contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the City of Bombay and the court of law in the city of Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon. The learned Civil Judge held that on the evidence adduced by the parties the contract was actually entered into at Varanasi. He held that the phrase in Clause 13, that, 'this contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the city of Bombay, has no meaning unless the contract is actually entered into in the city of Bombay. He observed that there was no evidence to establish that it was really entered into at Bombay. He concluded that the entire cause of action arose at Varanasi and the courts at Bombay have no jurisdiction. In this situation the parties could not, by an agreement, confer jurisdiction on courts at Bombay. He, therefore, held that courts at Varanasi had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application. Aggrieved the Defendant has come to this Court in revision.
(3.) The question that arises is whether any part of the cause of action arose at Bombay so that in view of Clause 13 of the agreement the courts at Varanasi had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for reference of the dispute to arbitration. Munshi Ambika Prasad, appearing for the opposite party, has raised a preliminary objection. He has urged that the aforesaid question is concluded by findings of fact based on the assessment of evidence on the record and in a revision this Court is not entitled to reassess the evidence and record its own finding. I am unable to accept this submission. The vital point, as I shall show a little later, is whether the court below was, by law, empowered to permit evidence, to be adduced on this question. If it was not entitled to do so the, court has clearly, exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. This apart, the question whether any part of the cause of action arose at Bombay is a jurisdictional fact, the decision of which will determine the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application. The finding on such a fact is amenable to scrutiny in a revision, see Ch. Jagdish Prasad, v/s. Ganga Prasad Chaudhary : 1959 Supp. 1 SCR 733 and Deep Chand Jain v/s. Board of Revenue UP Alld., 1966 ALJ 113. The preliminary objection cannot, therefore, be sustained.;