GOYAL, J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 12. 9. 2003 passed in a civil suit No. 61/1991 whereby he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of money on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of money against the defendant with the averments that plaintiffs-firm are sister concerns and constituted by the members of one and the same family. Both the plaintiffs-firms worked at Jaipur as Commission Agents of the defendant-company and the amount relating to one plaintiff-firm was adjusted in the account of other plaintiff firm. It is also averred that before commencement of the agency business, Shri Rajan Sehgal, who was the director of the defendant company, came at Jaipur and settled the terms and conditions with the partners of the plaintiff-firms and thereafter the business transactions took place according to the agreed terms and conditions. The plaintiffs further averred that they called upon the defendant company by notice dated 18. 7. 1999 to settle the accounts and to make the payment of the amount due to plaintiffs at Jaipur but the defendant sent false reply to the notice. The plaintiffs sought a decree against the defendant company for Rs. 3,03,185/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization and the costs of the suit. The defendant company filed the written statement. While admitting the fact that plaintiff-firms carried its agency business denied any amount due against the defendant company. It is also averred that terms and conditions for the agency work were settled at Mumbai, therefore, Jaipur Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. One another objection was also raised about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that joint suit is not permissible by the two different firms. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: *** The plaintiffs, in support of their case examined Nand Lal (PW. 1) and Mahesh Kacholiya (PW. 2 ). On behalf of the defendant company Ravi Mehta (DW. 1) was examined. After hearing both the parties, learned Court below decided only Issue No. 5 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree and other material available on the record. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the words ``subject to Mumbai jurisdiction'' containing on the bills sent by the defendant company exclude the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Court to try the suit ? Learned Counsel for appellants-plaintiffs contended that parties have entered into an agreement at Jaipur where Sh. Rajan Sehgal, director of the defendant company, came and thereafter the defendant company started supplying the clothes on commission basis at Jaipur, therefore as per the provisions of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure Jaipur Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contended that there was no contract in between the parties to the effect that in case of any dispute only the Mumbai Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely on the basis of printed note, relating to jurisdiction on the bills issued by the defendant-company, it cannot be said that plaintiffs have consciously agreed to such a condition or by necessary implication that they agreed to settle their disputes for adjudication to Courts situated at Mumbai only. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgments M/s. Patel Bros. vs. M/s. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd. reported in AIR 1959 Madras 227, C. Satyanarayana & Ors. vs. Kanumarlapudi Lakshmi Narsimham, reported in AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 330, Grandhi Pitchaiah, Venkataraju and Co. vs. Palukuri Jagannadham and Co. , Calcutta & Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 32, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Associated Transport Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1988 Kerala 36, M/s. Sponge Iron India Ltd. vs. M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. , Bangalore reported in AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 206 and M/s. Thakral and Sons vs. Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 226. It is next contended by counsel for the appellants that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and in accordance to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the Court arrives at the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit, then appropriate course was only to return the suit for presentation to appropriate Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment R. S. D. V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2094. Learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant supported the finding of the Trial Court and contended that parties entered into an agreement at Mumbai and in case of dispute only the jurisdiction is with the Court situated at Mumbai since by implication the plaintiffs have agreed to the printed condition written on the bills which were repeatedly sent by the defendant- respondent company. ;