THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 286 of 2011 Oral Judgment: This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application in I.A. No. 435 of 2011 in O.S. No. 16 of 2011, filed by respondent No.1 praying the Court to return/reject the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant entered into contract with respondent No.1 on 17.10.2010. The parties agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi to the exclusion of other Courts. Clause 15 of the contract provides the place of jurisdiction and arbitration. In pursuance of the contract, the appellant through respondent No.2-Bank, submitted five bank guarantees to respondent No.1. During the working of the contract, it appears that dispute arose between the parties. When respondent No.1 sought to invoke the bank guarantees, the appellant filed the present suit. Respondent No.1 having received the notice in the suit, filed the above I.A., to return/reject the plaint on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court below having considered the rival contentions, by the order under appeal, allowed the I.A. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first contract between the parties is not concluded, and as such, the contents thereof, cannot be looked into for ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hyderabad. He submitted that even if it is assumed that the first contract is concluded and the parties have agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts to the exclusion of other Courts, but as contract of bank guarantee, constitutes a separate and distinct contract, independent from the first contract, and the bank guarantees having been executed by the appellant in Hyderabad, the Courts at Hyderabad have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the Court below has committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 to return/reject the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that by the date the appellant filed the suit, respondent No.1 has already encashed the bank guarantees, and as such, the suit itself has become infructuous. Hence, no relief can be granted to the appellant. He further submitted that according to the appellant, the first contract is not concluded, and if that be so, there is no cause of action arisen for the appellant to file the suit. On that ground also, the suit filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the judgment under appeal and the material available on record. A perusal of the contract entered into by the appellant with respondent No.1, would clearly disclose that the parties in Clause 15, have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts in Delhi only in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement. That being so, merely because the appellant has executed the bank guarantees in Hyderabad through respondent No.2- bank, which are supplemental to the main contract, and transmitted them to the appellant for performance at Delhi, is no ground for the appellant to contend that since they executed the bank guarantees in Hyderabad, the Courts in Hyderabad have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the disputes arising out of the contract. That law on this aspect is well settled. The Apex Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar[1], having considered similar issue, held that merely because bank the guarantee was executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance at Bombay, it does not constitute a cause of action to give rise to the respondent to lay the suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court. Be that as it may, the questions whether the original contract is a concluded contract or whether bank guarantees are supplemental to the original contract and whether the parties have agreed to bound by the terms and conditions of the supplemental contract, are matters that have to be decided by the court having competent jurisdiction after full-fledged trial. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking to return the suit/plaint filed by the appellant on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 19th July, 2011 KSR [1] (1998) 8 SCC 436