S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 24.08.2013 in Title Suit No. 40 of 2008, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 40 of 2008 which was filed for a direction to the defendants to execute and register a sale deed. The plaintiffs averred that on different dates, they made payment to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Initially, an agreement was executed on 10.04.2003 which was supplemented by agreement dated 09.10.2004. Finally, agreement dated 02.06.2006 was executed between the parties, under which the defendant No. 1 agreed to execute sale -deed for 6 kathas land in plot No. 947. The defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of suit on various grounds including, on the question of jurisdiction. Vide order dated 24.09.2008 the said application was dismissed, against which W.P.(C) No. 5944 of 2008 was filed by the defendants. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.10.2012 granting permission to the defendants to raise question of jurisdiction, in accordance with law. After the issues were settled, an application was filed by the defendants seeking decision on the preliminary issue No. 8 which was framed as to the question of jurisdiction of Dumka court to try the suit. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 24.08.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) MR . V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the agreement dated 02.06.2006 was executed at Kolkata however, consent of the parties cannot confers jurisdiction on the court and therefore, even though, the agreement provides a forum and the place where a suit can be instituted, the suit can be instituted only in the court which has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is further submitted that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and merely on the ground that the agreement provides that the dispute would be subject to jurisdiction of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court, the plaint should not have been returned to be presented before the competent court at Kolkata.;