IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1136 OF 2010 Between : The Chairman M/s. Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .... PETITIONER A N D M/s Padmaja Agro Genetics Pvt.Ltd., …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1136 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (fort short, ‘the CPC’) is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2009 in I.A.No.2265 of 2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, West Godavari, Eluru, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC to decide the question of jurisdiction as primary issue, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, in spite of service of notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported i n New Moga Transport Company V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,[1], wherein it was held thus: “By a long series of decisions it has been held that where two Courts or more have under the CPC jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in any one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one Court has jurisdiction, parties by their consent may limit the jurisdiction to one of the two Courts. But by an agreement parties cannot confer jurisdiction to a Court with otherwise does not have jurisdiction to deal with a matter.” 4. He also relied on a decision reported in Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. V. Chand Mal Baradia and others[2], wherein it was held thus: “In our opinion that approach of the High Court is not correct. The plea of the jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter. The trial Court having held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, the High Court should have gone deeper into the matter and until a clear finding was recorded that the Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, no injunction could have been granted in favour of the plaintiff by making rather a general remark that the plaintiff has an arguable case that he did not consciously agree to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Court.” 5. He also relied on a decision reported in I.V.R.Constructions Limited V. Technocraft Industries India Limited[3], wherein it was held thus: “It is settled law that any agreement between the parties to the contract cannot validly take away the jurisdiction possessed by the Court, though ouster clause can operate as estoppel against the parties to the contract. But if more than one Court has jurisdiction under the statute, it is always open to the parties to agree to the jurisdiction of one Court to the exclusion of the other. In such cases, the plaintiff cannot insist that one Court (whose jurisdiction is excluded) should try the suit ignoring the jurisdiction of the Court which the parties agreed to submit.” 6. The principles laid down in the above decisions have to be read along with the factual background. Further, these decisions have not been brought to the notice of the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 30.09.2009 in I.A.No.2265 of 2006 in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Court, West Godavari, Eluru. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition after giving opportunity to both the parties with reference to the ratio laid down in the above decisions with reference to the factual aspect of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 08, 2011 YVL [1] AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2154 [2] AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2161 [3] 2010(2) ALT 239