K.K. Lahoti, J. - (1.)This revision is directed under Sec. 115 C.P.C. assailing the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 7B/2006 by which the petitioner's application under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C.read with 151 C.P.C. dated 12.1.2007 was rejected.
(2.)This order has been assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that in the tender form, a condition was enumerated that all disputes shall be subject to "Satna Court" and the respondent by accepting this condition submitted his tender which was accepted. Thereafter a dispute arose in respect of the supply of the goods and as per the case of the respondent, goods was supplied as per terms of the supply order while the stand of the petitioners was that it was not in accordance with the supply order.
(3.)The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 Civil Procedure Code before the trial Court and raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court on the ground that petitioner Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya Chitrakoot, Distt. Satna is a University established by the Government of M.P. under the Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwan Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991 and the headquarter of the University is situated in the district of Satna. That the plaintiff submitted the tender form duly filled and signed. It means, the plaintiff had accepted the terms and conditions which were mentioned in the tender form and after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the tender form fully, the plaintiff submitted his tender. In Clause 9 of the tender form, it was specifically provided that any dispute shall be subject to Satna Court jurisdiction, as University is situated in the district of Satna. The plaintiff accepting the terms and conditions of the tender submitted his tender, so the suit filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Jabalpur was not maintainable as it was having no territorial jurisdiction, and only Satna Court was having jurisdiction as per Clause 9 of the tender. By raising aforesaid objection, it was submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.