N.M.Kasliwal, J. - (1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated the 11th April, 1979.
(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,155.70 against the defendants-petitioners. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its Head Office at Delhi and a Branch Office at Guda House, Rasta Haldiyan, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. The defendants No. 2 placed an order on behalf of defendant No. 1 M/s. Jaishree Luxury House, a registered partnership firm, situated at Kota for the purchase of 48 Electric fans at Jaipur at Branch Office of the plaintiff's firm vide Order No. 7035 dated 20 Dec., 1976. The fans were sent through Globe Transport Corporation, which were delivered to the defendants vide Order Form No. 098724 dated the 24th February, 1977 and vide Bill No. 1236 of the same date. According to the plaintiff the contract was made at Jaipur, as such the Court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to decide the suit. The defendants filed a written statement inter alia taking an objection that the Court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit and as such was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed five issues out of which Issue No. 2 was framed as under:-- Issue No. 2: Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit ? Arguments were heard on this issue and the learned trial Court decided the same in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this revision- petition by the two defendants.
(3.) The defendants have not specifically denied the making of the contract at Jaipur and the learned counsel for the defendants has also admitted before this Court that a part of the cause of action having arisen at Jaipur, Court at Jaipur may have jurisdiction but the contention of the learned counsel is that according to the terms and conditions printed on the back of the goods Receipt No. 7035 dated the 20th Dec., 1976 all claims and sums due on account of breach of any condition of the contract could only be settled and instituted in Delhi Courts which should alone have jurisdiction. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the conditions Nos. 1, 2 and 11 printed on the back of the Order Form No. 7035 which are reproduced as under:- 1. Quotation: -- The offer made by firm shall be deemed to be a quotation only and shall not become binding on the firm as an agreement until orders are accepted in writing without alteration or change by an authorised officer of the firm in Delhi and notice of acceptance sent to purchasers. 2. Condition of Sale: -- All orders booked by the firm are subject to these General Condititons of sales and Terms of Business and all purchasers are deemed to have signified their acceptance of such conditions by placing the order. 11. Disputes: -- Customers' orders against this quotation are accepted in Delhi and all matters, claims and disputes arising in respect of these terms and conditions and/or out of or in connection with orders and acceptances are to be settled in Delhi and all claims and sums due on any account paid by the parties in Delhi. Any legal proceedings in respect of any matters, claims or disputes on any account or in any connection whatever shall be instituted by purchasers in the Delhi Courts which should alone have jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this terms rights as to arbitration as provided for later. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further laid great stress on the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" printed on the front side of the bill No. 1236 dated 24-2-1977. According to the learned counsel these two documents are plaintiffs' own documents which are binding on him and according to the above terms and conditions mentioned on the bill and the Order Form no other Court except the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit. Reliance in this connection has been placed on M/s. Singhal Transport v. M/s. Jesaram Jamumal, 1967 Raj LW 129. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following observations made in the above case: "It has been held in a number of decisions that where more Courts than one have jurisdiction to try a suit there is nothing contrary to public policy in an agreement between the parties that disputes between them would be tried at one place out of them, in this connection the decision in National Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Meghraj (AIR 1937 Nag 334) may be referred to. As was pointed out in Raghavayya v. Vasudevayya Chetty (AIR 1944 Mad 47) the relevant provision of the Contract Act which is directly applicable to such cases is contained in Section 28. I may also refer to the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Musa Ji Lukman Ji v. Durga Das (AIR 1946 Lah 57 (FB) in which it was held that an agreement between two parties that suits relating to disputes arising beween them would bs instituted only in one out of several competent Courts having territorial jurisdiction is not hit by Section 23. In Dwarka Rubber Works v. Chhotelal AIR 19&8 Madh B 120 it was held that such a contract is hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. With all respect I am of the opinion that the case was not correctly decided." Reliance is also placed on the following observations in Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd. AIR 1971 SC 740: "But where two Courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. Such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act." A similar view has been taken in M/s, Hindustan Tiles Corporation v. Kisanlal Mataprasad Agrawal, AIR 1979 Bom 69 : "Where more than one Court have jurisdiction to try suit, the parties can by agreement restrict a forum to try the suit." Reliance is further placed on the following observations in Section Manuel Raj & Co. v, J. Manilal & Co., AIR 1963 Guj 148: "When one of the parties to, a contract signs a printed form printed by the other party containing the words "subject to the jurisdiction of a place Q" and sends the order form to the other party it must be assumed that that party agreed that Q is the place for the settlement of disputes. It is not open to a person who signs an order form of the opposite party containing the printed words to say that the printed words are not part of the contract. To take the view taken by the learned J udge of the Madras High Court would be to upset the commercial practice of India, and unless such a position is necessary in view of the wording of any particular Section, I am not prepared to take that view. I am not prepared to upset the commercial practice of India unless the law requires me to do so. There is nothing in the law to hold that the expression "subject to jurisdiction of Q" printed at the top of 3 form may not bind M who signed the order form.";