IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 106 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.3.2011 Lafarge India Pvt. Limited and another ….Petitioners. Versus Attar Chand and another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate with Shri Aman Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioners has laid challenge to the order dated 17th March, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karsog, whereby he rejected the application filed by the defendants- petitioners under Order VII Rule 10 CPC praying that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that vide agreement dated 1st October, 2007 the plaintiff leased out on leave and license basis his property in village Churag to the defendants-company. This agreement contains a clause, which reads as follows:- “21. This agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Shimla.” 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit that after he had given premises on leave and license basis to the defendants, the officials of the defendants-company asked him to carry out major renovation in the building and he was assured that the costs of these renovations would be borne by the defendants. According to the plaintiff he carried out such repairs and spent a sum of Rs.3,64,156/- on these repairs. He claimed that this amount by means of the suit and in the suit he also claimed lease and license charges of Rs.12,500/- per month for the period of 10 months i.e.Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.4,89,156/- alongwith the future interest, etc. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 praying that in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties it was only the Court at Shimla which had jurisdiction. The learned trial Court held that as far as the claim of leave and license charges are concerned he did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the aforesaid clause. He, however, held that the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the balance amount of Rs.3,64,156/- was not covered under the terms of the agreement and hence the suit was maintainable and he, therefore, dismissed the application. 4. I have heard Shri Ajay Mohan Goel and Shri Aman Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In my view there is no error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned trial Court. When there is an 3 exclusionary of jurisdiction of a Court which is otherwise vested with jurisdiction the exclusionary clause has to be read narrowly. At this stage, I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but as per the case of the plaintiff he carried out the repairs after the lease and license agreement had been entered into between the parties on the asking of the defendants. He is claiming that he should be compensated for the renovation, additions and alterations which he carried out on the asking of the defendants. This is not covered by the terms of the agreement and therefore, the clause limiting the jurisdiction of the Court at Shimla would not be applicable. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties or on the merits of the claim of the plaintiff. 6. Shri Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, then requested that the case is fixed for tomorrow for filing of written statement and some further time be granted. It is not for this Court to extend time for filing the written statement but if any such application is filed the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 30th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge