- (1.) RESPONDENT appointed the petitioner as dealer for the sale of their products. An agreement of dealership. was entered into between the parties. Clause 15 of the Agreement provided for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in case of dispute which may arise between the parties. This clause further provided that "all proceedings and arbitration shall take place at Basik Road unless parties agree otherwise. " The dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner submitted a petition to. the Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar, under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, for the appointment of Arbitrator/arbitrators. This petition was contested by the respondent, who took various objections in its written statement. One of the objections was regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The petition was tried on merits and was allowed, and S/sh. Rajiv Bansal, Chartered Accountant and Ashwani Sarpal, Advocate, were appointed as arbitrators, with a direction to enter upon arbitration and give award within three months. With regard to objection of territorial jurisdiction, it was held that the Courts at Jalandhar have got the jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties. The order of the trial Court was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Additional District Judge without going into any other issued, decided the appeal only on the question of jurisdiction of the Court- The appeal was allowed and it was held that in view of the Clause-15, the Civil Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and it could only be filed at Nasik. This order is being challenged in the present revision petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Civil Court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the agreement was entered into at Jalandhar, the goods were supplied at Jalandhar and the payment was made at Jalandhar. He has further contended that no cause of action ever accrued at Nasik and, therefore, the parties by their agreement could not confer jurisdiction on a Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and a direction has to be issued to the first appellate Court to re-determine the matter. The first appellate Court ousted the jurisdiction of the Jalandhar Court only on the ground that in accordance with Clause-15, the parties to the agreement should submit the dispute to the jurisdiction of the Court at Nasik. It is true that the parties cannot by agreement, confer jurisdiction on a Court not possessed with the jurisdiction to try the same, but the parties can enter into an agreement that one of the Courts having jurisdiction, alone shall try the dispute. This type of agreement was held to be not contrary to public policy, or in violation of Section 28 of the Contract Act, by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd. ,1, A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 740. From the impugned order, I find that the first appellate Court has not made any reference to the evidence brought on record by the parties so as to hold that no cause of action wholly or in part arose at Nasik, In order to oust the jurisdiction of the Court at Nasik, it is necessary for the Court to give such a finding.;