CRP 501/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This petition by the defendant in Money Suit No.46/2008 is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court to t ry the said suit. The respondent in the present proceeding instituted Money Suit No.46/2008 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati praying for passing a decree for Rs.1,12,70,679/- with interest for breach of the contract between t he parties entered into. In the said suit, the defendant upon service of summon s entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule X read with S ection 151 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court at Guwahati , in view of Clause-5 of the invoice, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as in the said Clause, it has specifically been provided that the Court at Delhi only has the jurisdiction. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No.56/2008. The present respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the objection contending that since the suit has been instituted for breach of contract, i.e. agreement entered into between the parties where there is no stip ulation that the Court in Delhi only shall have the jurisdiction to entertain th e suit relating to the dispute arising out of the Contract and since the cause o f action arose within the jurisdiction of Guwahati Court, any Clause incorporate d in the invoice, which is not a contract between the parties cannot opts the ju risdiction of a Court and confer jurisdiction of a Court on a particular Case. The petition filed by the present petitioner/defendant has been rejected vide or der dated 21st September, 2010 and hence the present petition. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner referring to Clause-5 of the invoice has submitted that since there is stipulation that in respect of any dis pute or difference, the Court at Delhi only shall have the jurisdiction to enter tain any suit and the present suit being arising out of the supply made by the p etitioner/defendant by virtue of such invoices, no Court other than the Court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such, the learned Court below ought not to have refused to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filin g in the Court having jurisdiction over the matter. The learned Sr. Counsel, th erefore, submits that the impugned order dated 21st September, 2010 be set aside and the learned Court below may be directed to return the plaint to the plainti ff/ respondent for filing in the proper Court. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, referring to the averments made in the plaint and also the impugned order dated 21st Septe mber, 2010 has submitted that the suit for claiming certain amount has arisen be cause of the breach of contract entered into between the parties and there being no stipulation or agreement in the said contract that the Court at Delhi only s hall have the jurisdiction, the learned Court below has not committed any illega lity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, as the caus e of action arose within the territorial limit of jurisdiction of the learned Ci vil Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. It has also been submitted that Clause-5 of the invoice, which speaks about the Court at Delhi shall have the jurisdiction, bein g not an agreement between the parties, because of such Clause in such invoices, the jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action arose cannot be taken a way. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and als o perused the materials available on record. Though the learned Court below ought not to have gone into the question of juris diction at the initial stage, since the petitioner/defendant has invited the lea rned Court below to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the learne d Court below has recorded the finding that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It appears from the averments made in the plaint that the suit was based on the contract and certain amount has been claimed by the plaintiff/ respondent for br each of the contract. Admittedly, there is no Clause in the contract between th e parties to the effect that in case of any dispute or differences, the Court at Delhi only shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of such dispute or differences. The parties may by a contract agree that for resolving their dispute or differences, the Court at one place may have the jurisdiction. Such is not the case in hand. Clause-5 of the invoices though provides that if there is any dispute arising out of such invoices, the Court at Delhi only have the jurisdiction. The invoice is not the contract between the parties and by su ch invoice certain quantity of materials were sent from one place to another pla ce. It is not in dispute that the materials were supplied to a place at Guwahat i. The goods were delivered at Guwahati and the payments were made at Guwahati. That being the position, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 21st Se ptember, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati holdin g that the Court at Guwahati has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and hence the revision petition is dismissed. No cost s.