V.K. Gupta, J. - (1.)The plaintiff-appellant was running the business of Fire Wood furniture wood and coal depot at Hamirpur tehsil Hiranagar in Jammu & Kashmir State in the year 1983. He had taken out an insurance policy with respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. one lakh on 18-7-1983. The policy bore No. 823/3105484083. It was issued on 10-7-83 after having received the premium of Rs. 1135.00. The policy covered the risk of fire etc. for the period 18-7-83 to 18-7-84. It is alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that a fire broke out accidently during the night intervening 3-4 July 1984. Since the appellant alleged that some loss was caused to him, he filed a suit for claiming compensation and damages etc. The suit was being tried by the Court of District Judge, Jammu. Even though various issues were framed, only issue No. 3 was taken up for consideration which reads as under:-
"3. Whether on account of the conditions contained in the warranty this Court has got no jurisdiction OPD-1."

(2.)After relying upon a judgment of the single Judge in the case of M/s. Timber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1973 J& K86, the learned District Judge, Jammu dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the Courts at Jammu had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The ground urged before the learned District Judge, Jammu was that the policy of insurance was issued at Pathankot, a place in Punjab State and that, even though the premises covered by the policy were situated in Jammu and Kashmir State and that the fire broke out there, since the parties had agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of one Court and to confer exclusive jurisdiction to the other Court, the Courts at Pathankot alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit. In other words, the learned Court below, while relying upon the judgment of the single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms Timber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Skandia insurance Company Ltd. (supra) held that even though both the Courts at Jammu and Pathankot had jurisdiction, the parties by agreement could confer jurisdiction to one of such Courts exclusively b/ ousting the jurisdiction of the other Court, and since the parties had chosen to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Pathankot, the jurisdiction of the Courts in Jammu had got ousted. It may be stated that the aforesaid judgment of this Court was based upon the ratio of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh Vs. Gammon (India) Ltd., reported in AIR 1971 SC 740.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.