IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5476 OF 2009 Between : M/s.Savorit Limited, Dindigal .... PETITIONER A N D P.V.Prakash …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5476 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 12.10.2009, in O.S.No.72 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby, the Court below held that it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of the agreement only, the goods were borrowed and specifically agreed between the parties; that the dispute in pursuance of agreement has to be decided at Dindigal and, therefore, entertaining the suit contrary to agreement by the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is without jurisdiction. 4. No doubt, as per the agreement, any dispute between the parties therein arising out of the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Dindigal in Tamil Nadu. It is well settled that consent cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of a Court. If the Court has no inherent jurisdiction, neither acquiescence nor waiver nor estoppel can create it conversely where the Court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute. The same cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of parties. Under Clause ( c) of Section 20 CPC enables the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendant within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action “wholly or in part arises”. The jurisdiction to try the case depends upon the cause of action in the suit. The cause of action consists bundle of facts. If one part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Hindupur, then certainly the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is having jurisdiction to try the suit. One such cause of action in this case is, the agency of the plaintiff was terminated by settling the account at Hindupur. Therefore, a part of cause of action arose at Hindupur. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that it has got jurisdiction to try the suit. However, jurisdiction aspect of the case can be decided only after the evidence is let in by both the parties in the suit itself. Therefore, any observation made in the impugned order cannot be taken as a final order, and issue with regard to the jurisdiction is left open to be decided by the trial Court. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 07, 2011. YVL