M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) This application by the defendant -petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9.08.2007 passed by subordinate judge Ist, Saraikela in Money Suit No. 5 of 2006 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner purported to be under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court at Saraikela has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff -respondent placed purchase order in the year 2003 -04 before the petitioner for system design, detailed design, manufacture and supply of complete materials handling system etc. for Sponge Iron plant located at Kandra, Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand. An agreement to that effect was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent wherein clause 15.0 stipulated about the jurisdiction of Kolkata Court in case any dispute arises between the parties. After supply was made the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of Rs. five lakhs from the defendant -petitioner. The petitioner -defendant appeared in the suit and filed application raising question of maintainability of the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of Saraikela Court. According to the petitioner no Court other than Kolkata Court, as per clause 15.0, has jurisdiction to try the suit. The Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties, rejected the application holding that Kolkata Court has got no territorial jurisdiction as per agreement between the parties and only two courts, namely, the court at Saraikela and court at New Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(3.) MR . A. Allam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cissailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to clause 15.0 of the agreement and submitted that only the court at Kolkata has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned Counsel, in this connection, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Chand Mal Baradia and Ors. (2005) 2 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1807, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 6 A.I.R. S.C.W. 6533, New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 2 A.I.R. S.C.W. 2379 and Rita Dutta and Anr. v. Subhendu Dutta (2006) 1 A.I.R. S.C. 188.;