CR No.4791 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4791 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Richa Knits Limited and anr. ......Petitioner(s) Versus M/s Leen International Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction was dismissed. As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant-petitioners at Ludhiana. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging that as per the purchase order, the terms were settled between the parties and the plaintiff was to supply goods at Gurgaon premises and both the parties settled for the jurisdiction of Haryana Courts and therefore, in view of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the Civl Court at Ludhiana was not having the jurisdiction to try the present case and the plaint was liable to be rejected. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff- respondent stating that the petitioner had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ludhiana Court where the trial has already begun and CR No.4791 of 2010 2 even the evidence has started and therefore, the present application was nothing but a design to delay the proceedings. It was further stated that the goods were to be delivered through transport by road. It was denied that both the parties conceded the jurisdiction of the Haryana Courts. No jurisdiction can be conferred upon a place which otherwise had no jurisdiction. It was further stated that the order was placed at Ludhiana and the goods were delivered from Ludhiana and the part payment was made by the defendants also at Ludhiana and thus, a part of cause of action definitely arose at Ludhiana and the jurisdiction of the Ludhiana Court could not be excluded without there being any exclusive clause. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application holding that the plaintiff was carrying its business at Ludhiana and the goods were supplied to the defendants from Ludhiana by road and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent has a right to sue the petitioners for recovery at Ludhiana Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. United Vanaaspati Limited v. M/s. Shri Vardhman Solvex Pvt.Ltd 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 179 and has argued that the parties to contract can decide to avail exclusive jurisdiction of any one of the Courts otherwise having jurisdiction over the matter and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the contents of the revision petition. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by the petitioner that a party to the contract can decide to avail exclusive jurisdiction of any one of the Courts otherwise having jurisdiction over the matter. However, in the present case, whether the parties have agreed to CR No.4791 of 2010 3 exclude the jurisdiction of other Courts having jurisdiction except the Haryana Courts is a question of fact which can be decided only by way of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the settled proposition of law that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be thrown at the threshold of case under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law and the fact that the terms and conditions of the purchase order are yet to be proved, the plaint cannot be rejected in a summary manner at this stage. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. August 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE