IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.29 of 2007 ---- M/S Sai Entertainment, through Mr. Ram Mohan Jha S/o Late Maheshwar Jha, The Attorney, 408 Hari Om Commercial Complex, New Dac Bunglow Road, P.S. & P.O.-Gandhi Maidan, Patna, District- Patna. --Defendant-Petitioner. Versus M/S Alka Theatre, Begusarai, through its Proprietor/Manager, Viz Kundan S/o Sri Yogendra Chaudhary, P.O.-Laruara, P.S.-Mufassil, District-Begusarai, R/O of Village-Beguara, District-Begusarai. -- Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr.J.N.Tripathy, Advocate. For the opposite party : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. ----- 08. 24.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 27.10.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge, I, Begusarai allowed Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2005 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and set aside the award dated 19.09.2005 prepared by the arbitrators who were directed to consider the matter afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a deed of agreement dated 03.08.2004 was executed by both the parties at Patna with respect to screening of the film “SASURA BADA PAISE WALA”. It is further stated that there was outstanding dues of Rs.4,28,101.36 lying with the opposite party, namely the theatre, where the said film was screened. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner sent the matter before the - 2 - Arbitrators for settling the said dispute in accordance with clause 18 of the agreement dated 03.08.2004 in which both the parties accepted that the jurisdiction for any dispute would be at Patna. It is further stated that arbitrators prepared an award dated 19.09.2005 in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but the opposite party challenged the said award by filing Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2005 before the learned Subordinate Judge, I, Begusarai and the said court vide its impugned order dated 27.10.2006 allowed the said miscellaneous case, set aside the award and directed the arbitrators to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said order passed by the court at Begusarai was beyond the territorial jurisdiction which was fixed at Patna as per the agreement. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the theatre in question is situated at Begusarai and the opposite party is residing at Begusarai and hence the court at Begusarai had full jurisdiction to decide such matter, specially when the opposite party is disputing the genuineness of the agreement itself. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the contract vide agreement dated 03.08.2004 had taken place at Patna and Clause 18 thereof specifically shows that both the parties accepted the jurisdiction to be of the Patna Court and - 3 - furthermore, the matter was referred to the arbitrators at Patna. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that if the opposite party wanted to challenge the said award, he could have done that only before the Patna Court and not before any other court outside Patna. It further transpires from the impugned order that the learned court below was quite oblivious of the said fact as well as the settled principle of law that the place to sue against an agreement would be the place where the agreement had taken place. 7. So far the claim of the opposite party that the agreement itself was not genuine is concerned, it could not have been legally decided by the learned court below in a miscellaneous case as remedy for setting aside an agreement was neither claimed by the opposite party, nor any suit with respect thereto had been preferred before any court. In the said circumstances, the plea of the opposite party with regard to jurisdiction of Begusarai is not at all tenable in law. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the learned Subordinate Judge, I, Begusarai which had decided Miscellaneous case No.15 of 2005 had no territorial jurisdiction to pass the said order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this civil revision is allowed. 9. However, the opposite party will be at liberty to challenge the award or the agreement in question or both before any appropriate court of proper jurisdiction raising all the points which he has taken here or before the learned court below and the petitioner - 4 - will be at liberty to contest the said claims of the opposite party on merit. If the opposite party files a proper case/ petition before a court of competent territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction within one month from today, the said court will consider the matter on its own merits and will decide it in accordance with law. It may be noted that this case is decided only on the question of jurisdiction without going into the merits of the respective claims of the parties. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)