RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 9. 9. 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which, the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C. P. C. has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Programme Coordinator by the petitioners vide appointment order dated 25. 7. 2000 which was made effective from 1. 9. 2000 initially for a period of three years subject to condition that the services can be terminated with the notice period of three months on either side or salary in lieu thereof as per clause 6 of Service Contract dated 25. 7. 2000 and the service conditions shall be governed by the "staff Charter for India" as amended from time to time. The services of the respondent were terminated on 24. 10. 2000 by the Principal Office New Delhi and all his dues including three months salary in lieu of notice were paid to him on 26. 3. 2001. Aggrieved and dissatisfying with the termination order, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit before the Court of Civil Judge (J. D. (No. 2), Jaipur City, Jaipur on 26. 3. 2001. It is also submitted that earlier to the present suit, the respondent also filed another suit and in that suit the petitioners had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C. P. C. and while deciding the said application, the Civil Judge (J. D.), Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 25. 10. 2002 in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. Against the judgment passed by the Civil Judge dated 25. 10. 2002, the respondent No. 1 preferred a misc. appeal before the Additional District Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was also rejected on 16. 12. 2003 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 preferred a second appeal before the Court and same was rejected in limine vide judgment dated 29. 1. 2004. During the pendency of the present suit, the petitioners defendants moved an application under Section 20 and 21 read with Order 7 Rule 11 (d) as well as Section 151 C. P. C. before the court below and prayed for rejection of the suit as the same is also inhabited by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. and interdicted for not revealing any cause of action in view of explicit and categoric contract between the parties to resolve the disputes, if any, through Delhi Courts only. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners referred "staff Charter" wherein in para no. 2 which is titled as "preamble" which stipulates that "all the legal matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of employment come under the exclusive jurisdiction of only the Delhi Courts". And also referred Clause 28 of the "staff Charter" which provides that "in case of any dispute arising out of service conditions of staff member the matter should be referred to and dealt by the head office in Delhi. The jurisdiction of Delhi Court would be valid unless specified by CPDI (Country Programme Director India ).
(3.) AFTER referring these two clauses, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case "m/s. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. vs. M/s. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2432 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-      " Territorial jurisdiction of Court-Determination of part of cause of action accrued in both places viz. Delhi and Bombay- Clause in agreement between parties, however, conferring jurisdiction in Courts in Bombay-Not opposed to public policy- Clause not qualified by words like "alone" "only" or "exclusively". But having regard to facts that purchase order was placed by the defendant at Bombay; the said order was accepted by the branch office of the plaintiff at Bombay; the advance payment was made by the defendant at Bombay' and as per the plaintiffs' case the final payment was to be made at Bombay- It can be inferred that Courts in Bombay have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts-Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi had, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit". Hon'ble the Supreme Court also considered the case of "a. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 wherein it was held as under:-      " When the Court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, ipso facto take away jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like "alone", "only", "exclusive" and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim `expressio unius est exclusio alterius'-expression of one is the exclusion of another-may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all other from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed". Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the court below has not committed any wrong while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C. P. C. ;