HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.5024 of 2010 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is field against the order dated 20.09.2010 in I.A.No.76 of 2006 in O.S.No.566 of 2006 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing an application filed by the revision petitioner, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, to return the plaint for presentation before proper Court. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.6,46,626/- being the amount due under a loan transaction. The 1st defendant in the suit is the borrower and the 2nd defendant who is the petitioner herein is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant did not appear and the 2nd defendant having appeared, filed the present application to return the plaint, since under Clause 9 of the agreement the jurisdiction is conferred exclusively on the Court at Madras and the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that the seizure of the property has taken place at Hyderabad and the defendants reside at Hyderabad. Furthermore in the agreement, the jurisdiction was mentioned at Madras, because there was no branch office at that time and subsequently there was an office at Hyderabad, which belongs to the plaintiff and as such the suit is within time. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the application. Aggrieve by the said order, the present revision is filed. The point for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court in dismissing the application for return of the plaint is legal and sustainable. There is no dispute about the facts and the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant having executed the agreement for the suit loan is also not in dispute. Under Clause 9, it was mentioned as follows: “In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties relating to the construction, meaning and effect or performance or any other matter under these presents the court at Madras alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction”. Basing on the above clause, it was contended that the Court at Madras has got exclusive jurisdiction. Evidently, there is no dispute about the fact that the parties can exclude the jurisdiction of any Court when both the Courts have got jurisdiction. In this case, it is not in dispute that the court at Hyderabad and Madras have got jurisdiction. But, as per the agreement, on the above clause, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Court at Madras. The decision reported in New Moga Transport Company v United India Insurance Company[1] relied on by the counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that there is a clause to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other courts and when the clause states that the court at Madras alone has got jurisdiction, then the clause is enforceable. The decision reported in M/s Patel Road Ways Ltd., Bombay v M/s Prasad Trading Company[2] does not deal with facts of this nature and it did not consider the exclusion of jurisdiction by agreement. Evidently, the exclusion of jurisdiction is by agreement between the parties. When the Court has to take into consideration such an agreement between the parties, the plea of the party as to under what circumstances exclusive jurisdiction is sought to be conferred on a Court has to be determined. Evidently, according to the case of the plaintiff, when the said agreement was entered, there was no office at Hyderabad and consequently the parties intended to confer jurisdiction at Madras. If it is to be proved that if the parties intended to exclude the jurisdiction only for that reason, naturally the court at Hyderabad will not lose jurisdiction. In fact, the suit itself was filed by the office at Hyderabad and the defendant is not challenging the maintainability of the suit at the instance of the plaintiff company by its Hyderabad office. Therefore, it can only be decided in evidence as to under what circumstances the parties wanted to exclude the jurisdiction and if a subsequent event has changed the contract whether it can be looked into or not is a matter to be decided at the trial. It is to be noted that when a fact has to be determined on evidence, the Court cannot reject the plaint summarily or return the same. Therefore, from the material on record, it is quite clear that the plaintiff has taken a plea that there are changed circumstances from the contract and the parties intended to act because of particular circumstances and whether these contentions are tenable or not can only be considered in the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge does not call for any interference. However, the petitioner can file a written statement and a proper issue can be framed and decided at the trial. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 2nd February, 2011 PNV [1] AIR 2004 SCW 2379 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1514