In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.4971 of 2003 ..... Date of decision:10.3.2008 M/s Uttam Woolens Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant v. Varinder Kumar Singal .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,07,788/- which includes Rs.82,918/- as arrears of freight charges and Rs.24,870/- on account of interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of bills of freight charges till the date of filing of the suit and for recovery of future interest @ 18% per annum. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002 dismissed the suit. It was held that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no jurisdiction. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set side and the suit of the plaintiff decreed for the recovery of Rs.1,07,788/- with further interest @ 6% per annum to be charged on the principal amount only from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The said judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate R.S.A. No.4971 of 2003 [2] Court are assailed by the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has contended that the Civil Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is submitted that a preliminary objection had been raised in the written statement with regard to the Civil Courts at Ludhiana having no jurisdiction. It is submitted that the leaned trial Court had correctly decided issue No.2 with regard to jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana to entertain and try the suit. However, the learned lower appellate Court erred in reversing the said finding of the trial Court. In response, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the issue of jurisdiction has been decided by the lower appellate Court and no question of law is involved in the present appeal. In any case, it is submitted that cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff at Ludhiana and in one of the bills providing for carriage of goods it has been mentioned; “subject to Ludhiana jurisdiction”. The same, it is submitted, creates a contract between the parties. Reliance has been placed on ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the record shows that the learned lower appellate Court has observed that the learned trial Court dismissed the suit simply on the ground that the Court at Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction. Otherwise the trial Court had decided issues No.1 and 3 i.e. regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount and whether the plaintiff is not competent to file the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount and that it is competent to file the R.S.A. No.4971 of 2003 [3] present suit. The only dispute was with regard to territorial jurisdiction. A reference was made to pleadings between the parties. In paras 2 and 7 of the plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that it was agreed that the defendant will remit transportation charges to the plaintiff at Ludhiana. In the corresponding paras of the written statement, the defendant has not specifically denied this fact. The learned trial Court rightly observed that a fact which is not denied in the written statement shall be deemed to be admitted. There is no dispute to the said proposition. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, referred to the preliminary objections in the written statement. In my view, these are hardly of any consequence. Besides, the bill providing for carriage of goods had recorded; “subject to Ludhiana jurisdiction”. In ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies (supra) it was held that confirmation order acknowledging receipt of the order, wherein it is recorded that it is subject to terms and conditions overleaf and the condition overleaf containing clause making dispute subject to jurisdiction of a particular Court, it was held, forms part of the agreement. It was held that as a matter of commercial law and practice parties to a contract may agree as to the jurisdiction to which all or any disputes on or arising out of the contract shall be subject. Therefore, the contract providing the settlement of disputes “subject to Ludhiana jurisdiction” is valid. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the finding that the Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction to entertain the suit calls for no interference in regular second appeal. No question of law arises in the appeal. R.S.A. No.4971 of 2003 [4] Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 10, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No