HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No.: 184 of 2004 Reserved on: 27.8.2009 Decided on: 18.9.2009 Mohan Meakin Ltd. ………Appellant. Versus M/s Sanjay Wine Traders and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the CPC against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, dated 26.4.2004, vide which the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a proper court. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for a recovery of Rs.7,67,273/- as against the defendants alleging that the defendants had obtained supplies of Indian Made Foreign Sprit and Beer manufactured by the plaintiff, which was supplied from their depot at Pathankot. It was alleged __________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - that some payments were made by the defendants but some of the cheques issued by them were dishonoured and accordingly, the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of the balance amount due to them from the defendants. The defendants denied the allegations and also took up preliminary objections in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and for the present discussion, Issue No.3 can be said to be relevant since the findings have been recorded by the learned trial Court on this issue only. Issue No.3 reads as under: “3.Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case?” After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order of return of plaint. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that since the plaintiff Company was having its registered office at Solan, part of cause action had arisen at Solan and, therefore, the findings to the contrary are liable to set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned order for the reasons given therein. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the learned trial Court had observed that though there may be a condition on the - 3 - back of the invoices that the courts at Solan would have jurisdiction but those invoices were never signed by the defendants or that the defendants never agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Solan. Accordingly, in view of these facts, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that since the defendants never accepted the plea that the courts at Solan exclusively will have territorial jurisdiction since they never signed any invoices and the condition imposed was unilateral, the impugned order was passed. However, in passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court had relied upon the decision in M/s Mohan Meakin versus M/s Himalaya Enterprises and Co., 2003(2) Shim.L.C. 50, wherein also a similar question arose as to the suit filed by the present plaintiff for recovery of amount based on invoices. The suit was dismissed by the court at Solan and those findings were upheld by the First Appellate Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiff (plaintiff in the present case also) was dismissed. The said decision applies to the facts of the present case, in which a similar question had arisen which has been considered by this Court also and it had been concluded that in such circumstances, the mere condition on the invoices does not give jurisdiction to the Courts at Solan to try the case exclusively. In view of the above discussion and the fact that the learned trial Court had placed reliance upon an earlier decision of this Court based on similar facts, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court directing the return of the plaint cannot be said to be incorrect and - 4 - they call for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear own costs. September 18, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.