H.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE entire controversy involved between the parties revolves around the platform of territorial jurisdiction. By virtue of the impugned order dated 7.2.2007, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri recorded a finding on the preliminary issue, which runs as under : " Whether Civil Court of Yamuna Nagar has territorial jurisdiction or not ?" The operative part of the impugned order dated 7.2.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri runs as under :- "Concededly, an agreement was arrived at and signed between the parties in the form of C and FA Form, which is Ex-D1 on the file. As per the term and conditions of the agreement Ex. D1, it has been mentioned that "All disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of Agra Courts". For ouster or exclusion of jurisdiction of court having concurrent jurisdiction, the language in the agreement must be unambiguous, clear and specific. From condition in the C and FA form " Subject to jurisdiction of Agra Court", ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts cannot be implied. Position would have been different if the condition was "subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts only or alone." The defendants supplied the salt from Agra in response to C and FA agreement and the salt was to be sold and distributed in Yamuna Nagar. From the condition " subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts", it cannot be said that there was any consensus or agreement between the parties on the question of jurisdiction of Courts. Courts at both the places i.e., Yamuna Nagar and Agra have jurisdiction. Plaintiff, i.e., the party receiving the goods had, in the absence of exclusion of jurisdiction the choice in the matter of filing a suit in a particular court. The mere use of the words "subject to jurisdiction of Agra Courts" cannot mean that only Agra Courts have jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff has received the goods in Yamuna Nagar, issued demand drafts from Yamuna Nagar shall have jurisdiction to try the present suit. Accordingly, the preliminary issue is decided against the defendants."
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the order, the present petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revision petition.;