JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner herein was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 11,000/- for establishment of Oil Ghani. Out of the said amount, part of it was to be treated as subsidy. It was the case of the petitioner that out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 11,000/- a sum of Rs. 6,950/- was disbursed to him. The petitioner, out of the said amount, is said to have paid a part of the amount for supply of machinery parts and a sum of Rs. 4,125/- was paid to have been given to him for construction of shed while a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was said to have been given to the petitioner for purchase of raw material. However, the plant could not be set up. Accordingly, a demand was made by the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Board’) for refund of the loan amount. As per clause of 12 of the memorandum executed between the parties, in the event of any dispute concerning this loan, the matter was to be referred to the sole arbitration of any person in terms of the said clause, which reads as under:
Clause 12: In the event of any dispute, difference arising out or in any way touching or concerning any one or all the terms and the conditions herein above mentioned in respect of this loan grant or any account of valuation whatsoever connected with it, it shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Member/Secretary of the Board/The Society Institution Individual will have no objection that such a person is a servant of the Khadi & Village Industries Commissioner/The Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board/The Government. In the event of such sole arbitrator’s vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason whatsoever the member/Secretary of the Haryana Khadi & Village Industries Board shall appoint another person to act as the sole arbitrator. The provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to such arbitration proceedings and the award of the arbitration shall be conclusive, final and binding on both the society Institution/Individual and the Board.
2. The case of the petitioner was that the Board launched the recovery proceedings without giving full amount of the loan and without referring the matter to the arbitration. In the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, it was claimed that the machinery was supplied at village Inchhapuri and, therefore, the Court at Gurgaon had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the said petition.
3. The reply to the said petition was filed, wherein a preliminary objection was taken by the respondent-Board that the Court at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition as the agreed jurisdiction for referring any dispute with regard to loan etc. was at Chandigarh.
4. It may be noticed that on 11.9.1984 the learned trial Court was pleased to pass the following order:
Photostat copy of the agreement has already been placed on the record. The learned Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the clause 12 of the agreement, the matter has to be referred to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Member-Secretary of the Board. The learned Counsel for the respondents has prayed that he will request the Member Secretary of the Board to appoint the Arbitrator. Other side has no objection. To come up on 28.9.1984 for further proceedings.
Thereafter on the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed:
1. Whether the Civil Court at Gurgaon has no jurisdiction? OPD
2. Whether the defendants-respondents have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and if so, its effect? OPD
5. The learned Courts below by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. and in the case of Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. , came to the conclusion that as the courts at Chandigarh as well as Gurgaon had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition, the parties were within their right to restrict the jurisdiction of one of the Courts which was admittedly Chandigarh Court. The reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Laminators v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. A.I.R. 1978 NOC 165 (Cal.). However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that order dated 11.9.1984 reproduced above would tantamount to submission to the jurisdiction of the Court at Gurgaon and, therefore, the objection to the territorial jurisdiction would be deemed to have been waived. However, this contention was not accepted and the learned trial court had ordered the return of the petition for its presentation in the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Hence the present civil revision.
6. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Gurgaon Court had the jurisdiction in view of explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the office of the respondent-Board was also at Gurgaon.
7. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that once the party had submitted to the jurisdiction, then it was not open to the Courts below to have rejected the said petition as objection to the territorial jurisdiction could be waived.
8. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the same.
9. It is not in dispute that the Court at Gurgaon had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition, but at the same time, it cannot be said that the Chandigarh Court did not have jurisdiction, as admittedly, the Head Office of the respondent-Board is situated at Chandigarh and in that situation it is a settled law that the parties by agreement can restrict the jurisdiction to one of the Courts having jurisdiction and in that event, the agreement would bind the parties & jurisdiction of other Court would stand ousted. The learned Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that in view of the agreement between the parties, only the Court at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition field by the petitioner and, therefore, petition was rightly ordered to be returned for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction,
10. As regards the second contention of the petitioner, it is pertinent to mention that the learned Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the objection to the jurisdiction was taken in the written statement and an issue was also framed, which was ordered to be treated as preliminary issue and the parties went on trial on said issue and a finding has also been recorded on that. The order dated 11.9.1984 cannot be said to be an order submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court especially when a preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction had already been taken. Thus, the orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which may call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.