D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is directed against an order dated 11.9.1984 of 1st Additional Civil Judge. Aligarh deciding issue No. 1 on jurisdiction against the revisionists. None appeared for the opposite party. Hence, learned counsel for the revisionist was heard and the impugned order and summoned record were perused.
(2.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists has been that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit on two grounds enumerated in para 2 of the written statement. The first ground was that no part of cause of action accrued in Aligarh. The second ground is contained in para 2A of the written statement where it is stated that the defendants made all such transactions and deals/dealt with its customers including plaintiff only subject to Bangalore jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction of Bangalore courts for any dispute whatsoever.
(3.) The second ground has absolutely no merit. It is only under completed contract between the parties that the parties can oust the jurisdiction of one court where part of the cause of action accrues and agree to the jurisdiction of other court mentioned in the agreement. In para 2A of the written statement, no such contract has been pleaded by the defendants. On the other hand, the inference from para 2A is that it is not a matter of contract between the parties but practice with the defendants to deal with customers subject to Bangalore jurisdiction only. If there is no such contract between the parties, the jurisdiction of Aligarh court could not be ousted.;