RSA No. 655 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 655 of 2006 Date of Decision: 2.9.2009 M/s Neel Kanth Tubes Private Limited. ......Appellant Versus M/s Classical Tubes Private Limited. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.44,711/- as principal and Rs.48,287/- as interest was partly decreed. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for recovery on the ground that it is a manufacturer and supplier of ERW pipes and tubes. The goods were supplied in the month of January, 1997 but after adjusting the payments from time to time, a sum of Rs.44,711/- was not paid by the defendant. In the written statement, the defendant raised a plea that the amount sought to be recovered from the defendant was deducted from the RSA No. 655 of 2006 (2) Bills on account of short weight and supply of defective material. The defendant claimed storage charges of defective materials from the plaintiff amounting to Rs.87,733/-. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Chandigarh Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In respect of the plea of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation, issue No. 7 was framed, which was not pressed before the learned trial Court. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court decreed the suit relying upon invoices Exhibits P.1 and P.2, wherein the parties had agreed to submit their disputes to the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Courts as per the clause printed thereon. The first Appellate Court has also found that the defendant has not raised any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court arising out of the Bills. In view of the said fact, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit decreed for recovery of Rs.42,500/-. The plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @ 12% amounting to Rs.15,300/-. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the printed clause in the invoice is not binding clause so as to confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Chandigarh. It is also argued that on the basis of independent evidence on record, it is apparent that the Chandigarh Courts do not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also sought to be argued that the present suit is barred by limitation, therefore, no decree could have been passed by the learned first Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1239, has held RSA No. 655 of 2006 (3) that where there are two or more Courts competent to entertain the suit, then the parties may by contract vest jurisdiction in one of such Courts to try the dispute which might arise as between them. In view of the said judgment, the finding of the learned first Appellate Court that the parties have agreed to submit their disputes to the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Courts, and thus, the Chandigarh Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be said to be erroneous. The argument that the suit is barred by limitation is not available to the appellant as the issue regarding limitation was not pressed before the learned trial Court as it apparent from para No. 16 of the judgment of the trial Court. Similar statement was made before the learned first Appellate Court. It is so apparent from para No. 12 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court. The objection with regard to limitation having been waived before the Courts below, the appellant is estopped to raise an argument in the second appeal that the suit is barred by limitation. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 02-09-2009 ds