ORDER
K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. This revision is directed under Section 115 C.P.C. assailing the orderdated 14.3.2007 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 7B/2006 by which the petitioner’s application under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C.read with 151 C.P.C. dated 12.1.2007 was rejected.
2. This order has been assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that inthe tender form, a condition was enumerated that all disputes shall be subject to “Satna Court” and the respondent by accepting this condition submitted histender which was accepted. Thereafter a dispute arose in respect of the supply of the goods and as per the case of the respondent, goods was supplied as per terms of the supply order while the stand of the petitioners was that it was not in accordance with the supply order.
3. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC before the trial Court and raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court on the ground that petitioner Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya Chitrakoot, Distt. Satna is a University established by the Government of M.P. under the Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwan Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991 and the headquarter of the University is situated in the district of Satna. That the plaintiff submitted the tender form duly filled and signed. It means, the plaintiff had accepted the terms andconditions which were mentioned in the tender form and after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the tender form fully, the plaintiff submitted his tender. In Clause 9 of the tender form, it was specifically provided that any dispute shall be subject to Satna Court jurisdiction, as University is situated in the district of Satna. The plaintiff accepting the terms and conditions of the tender submitted his tender, so the suit filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Jabalpur was not maintainable as it was having no territorial jurisdiction, and only Satna Court was having jurisdiction as per Clause 9 of the tender. By raising aforesaid objection, it was submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
4. The plaintiff replied to the aforesaid application and submitted that the Civil Court at Jabalpur is having jurisdiction because the entire process of filing tender, dispatch of goods, preparation of bills/vouchers of the goods were taken place at Jabalpur. The plaintiff is having its office at Jabalpur and the cause of action arose at Jabalpur, the suit before the Civil Court at Jabalpur is maintainable. It was denied that Satna Court is having exclusive jurisdiction. Respondent placed his reliance to the Apex Court judgment in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P.Agencies, Salem , judgment of Kerala High Court in Femina Handloom of India v. M.R. Verma and sons and Single Bench judgment of this Court in Sun Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Vivek and Company 2002(1) M.P.H.T. 121 and submitted that the application filed by the respondent be dismissed.
5. The trial Court after hearing both parties found that between the parties, there is no specific agreement for exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Court at Jabalpur and vesting exclusive jurisdiction to Satna Court. In absence of this, when a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Jabalpur Court, the Court at Jabalpur is having jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of C.P.C. Recording aforesaid finding and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 214, the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner. This order dated 14.3.2007 is under challenged in this revision.
6. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Court below erred in not properly construing Clause 9 of the tender in which it was specifically mentioned “all dispute shall be subject to Satna Court”. Apart from this,Chitrakoot Vishwavidyalaya is constituted under the Mahatma Gandhi (Chitrakoot) Gramodaya Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adhiniyam’) and under Section 3(5) of the Act, the headquarters of the University is at Chitrakut, District Satna, M.P. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the respondent which ought to have been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court judgment in Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works . Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent reiterated the contentions raised before the trial Court and placed his reliance to the judgment referred hereinabove.
7. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties firstly factual position may be ascertained. In this case, it is not in dispute that the tender form provides Condition No. 9 which reads as under:
All disputes shall be subject to Satna Court
So far as other contentions in respect of supply of the goods, dispatch of it from Jabalpur, place of working of respondent/plaintiff at Jabalpur etc. are concerned, these are not in dispute. The petitioners have also placed reliance to Section 3 of the Adhiniyam which provides that headquarters of the University shall be at Chitrakoot, District Satna M.P. At this juncture, I would like to refer certain provisions of the Act which reads as under:
Section 3:-Incorporation of the University:-(1) There shall be established a University by the name of the Mahtma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya which shall be consist of a Chancellor, A Vice Chancellor, a Pro-Vice Chancellor, a Board of Management, an Academic Council and other authorities and officers as provided in this Act or Statutes.
(2) The University shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said name.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act the University shall be competent to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which may have become vested in or may have been acquired by it for the purpose of the University, and to contract and do all other things necessary for the purpose of this Act.
(4) In all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleading shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and served on the Registrar of the University.
(5) The headquarters of the University shall be at Chitrakut, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
Section 4: Territorial jurisdiction-With respect to teaching, research and extension programmes of rural development education the territorial jurisdiction and responsibility for this University shall extend to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh.
Except these, there is no other provision in the Act providing territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of disputes with Vishwavidhyalaya. Section 4 though provides territorial jurisdiction in respect of teaching, research and extension programmes of rural development education and this specifically provides territorial jurisdiction and responsibility of this University shall extend to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. In absence of exclusion of jurisdiction of any Civil Court by enactment, the Courts other then Satna Court are also having jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the C.P.C., if cause of action wholly or in part arises within their jurisdiction. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam though provides that in all the suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleading shall be signed and verified by the Registrar who is the appropriate authority to whom notice of the proceedings is to be issued and served but does not provide exclusive jurisdiction of the Satna Court in respect of the legal proceedings by or against the University. In these circumstances, so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioners do not get any benefit of the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1991.
8. Now Clause 9 of the tender may be seen. Though it provides that all disputes shall be subjected to Satna Court, but it does not specifically exclude or oust the jurisdiction of other Courts. In absence of exclusion or ouster of other Courts, Satna Court alone will not have exclusive jurisdiction, if the cause of action arises to other Courts.
9. The Apex Court in A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considering this aspect held thus:
When the Court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, ipso facto take away jurisdiction of other Courts
In this case, the clause is that all disputes shall be subject to Satna Court. Whether such clause ousts the jurisdiction of the other Court is to be seen. The clause when does not exclude jurisdiction of the other Court or provides exclusive or only or alone jurisdiction to the Satna Court, exclusion of other Court cannot be readily inferred. Where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jursdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like ‘alone’, ‘only’, ‘exclusive’ and the like have been used there may be no difficulty.
10. In M/s Sun Beverages (P) Ltd (supra) considering the similar clause in the agreement in which it was provided that “subject to Agra jurisdiction only”, the leaned Single Bench of this Court held that it has to be shown that the parties specifically agreed or acknowledged through agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court envisaged under provision of Section 20 of the C.P.C. The aforesaid words themselves are not enough to indicate that they were a part of the agreement between both parties to oust jurisdiction resulting from any dispute out of the business transaction as settled between the parties.
11. In M/s Femina Handloom of India Cannanore (supra), Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, as his Lordship then was, considering section 20 of the C.P.C. regarding territorial jurisdiction held that the plaintiff who sent the goods to the defendant pursuant to an order placed by the defendant to send the goods, is entitled to maintain a suit in the court at the place from where he had despatched the goods to the purchaser and the action of the plaintiff was found justified in filling the suit at the place from where the goods were sent.
12. In Globe Transport Corporation (supra), the clause in the terms and conditions between the parties was that the Court in Jaipur City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transportation. The Apex Court considering the aforesaid clause in which Jaipur City Court alone was vested with the jurisdiction, held that the other Courts were having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Apex Court held that no doubt clause 17 of the Contract of Carriage confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court at Jaipur and excludes jurisdiction of other Courts and the aforesaid clause would be valid and effective.
13. In the present case, no such clause was there excluding the jurisdiction of the other Courts or vesting exclusive jurisdiction alone or only jurisdiction to the Satna Court. The parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction where none exists on Court to which C.P.C. applies. But this principle does not apply when parties agree to submit exclusive jurisdiction on a Court. The parties may agree to have their dispute resolved by a Court where the cause of action or part of it arises and can exclude jurisdiction of other Court even where cause of action or part of it arises by a specific clause in this regard by agreeing in respect of alone, only or exclusive jurisdiction to a Court and excluding jurisdiction of the other Courts where the suit could have been filed and such vesting of the jurisdiction is not contrary to the public policy and in no way contravenes section 23 of the Contract Act.
As discussed hereinabove by clause 9, parties had not excluded the jurisdiction of other Courts and had not agreed to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Civil Court at Satna, hence the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit in the Court at Jabalpur. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners in which no fault/jurisdictional error is found. This revision is without merit and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.