Delhi High Court
Alphabetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Lohia Jute Press on 13 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIAD(DELHI)570, AIR2004DELHI374, 107(2003)DLT74, 2003(70)DRJ458, AIR 2004 DELHI 374, (2004) 3 RECCIVR 355, (2003) 70 DRJ 458, (2003) 107 DLT 74
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. In a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of certain amount being the price of the goods supplied to the respondent, an objection was taken by the respondent that as per agreement between the parties, printed on the bills submitted by the plaintiff, only courts in Bombay had jurisdiction to try the suit and Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the same. This plea was, however, denied by the plaintiff and it was stated that the conditions printed on the bills did not constitute a binding agreement between the parties and as part of cause of action had accrued in Delhi, the Delhi Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and also the plea taken by the respondent in the written statement that as per the conditions contained in the bills furnished by the plaintiff/appellant, the Bombay courts alone had jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties, besides framing other issues, also framed an issue as to "whether the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit". The Trial Court, however, did not treat the said issue about territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and directed the parties to lead evidence on all the issues framed by the court. After evidence was led, the trial court held that the conditions mentioned in the bills submitted by the plaintiff clearly showed that the parties had agreed that all disputes were subject to Bombay jurisdiction only and consequently the plaintiff could not turn around and say that Delhi courts will also have jurisdiction to try the suit. After holding that in terms of the agreement between the parties, only Bombay courts had jurisdiction to try the suit, the Court directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in proper court. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since the conditions printed on the bill submitted by the appellant were not signed by the respondent, they did not constitute a binding contract between the parties and the jurisdiction of Delhi courts could not be ousted by such conditions. I am afraid, I am not in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant. The condition that only Bombay Courts would have jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties was incorporated by the appellant itself on its bills. It was thus not open at least to the appellant to turn around and say that the conditions mentioned on the bills were not binding on the appellant. While it may be true that a part of the cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, but when two or more courts have jurisdiction to try a suit, the parties can agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of one of these courts and oust the jurisdiction of other courts. Such an agreement is not against public policy. Since appellant itself had agreed to oust the jurisdiction of Delhi courts by laying down the condition that only Bombay courts would have jurisdiction, in my opinion, the trial court has rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that notwithstanding that the case could be disposed of on a preliminary issue under Order 14 rule 2 CPC, the court ought to have pronounced judgment on all the issues. It is further submitted that it is only when an issue of law is treated as a preliminary issue that the Court could dispose of the suit on that preliminary issue but once the evidence has been led, the court ought to have pronounced judgment on all the issues. Reliance for this is placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the judgments reported as Mohammad Yasin Vs. Abdul Kalam and another Madhabananda Ray and another Vs. M/s. Spencer and Co. Ltd. and Smt. Sulochana Devi Bubna Vs. Gobinda Chandra Nag and others .
5. In terms of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC once a suit has been tried on all the issues, it is required of the Court to give findings on all such issues. However, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of a case may warrant the court to refrain itself from giving findings on all the issues as it may prejudice the trial of the case in the Court where it is filed after the plaint is returned. Once the court comes to a finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, in my opinion, it would have been an exercise in futility to decide other issues on the merits of the case. The findings on the other issues after the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation in appropriate court would have prejudiced one of the parties and the trial court has rightly not given findings on other issues framed by it. I am, therefore, not in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is bad only because the findings on other issues have not been given by the learned Trial Court.
6. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in terms of Order 7 Rule 10A CPC, where the Court is of the opinion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its opinion to the plaintiff so as to give opportunity to the plaintiff to move appropriately for a direction to be given to the parties to be present in the Court where the plaint was to be presented after it was returned by the Court.
7. There is force in this contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Where in any suit after the defendant had appeared, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint should be returned, the court in terms of Rule 10A of Order 7 shall give intimation of its opinion to the plaintiff. On such intimation being given to the plaintiff, it is open to the plaintiff to make an application to the Court, specifying as to in which Court he proposes to present the plaint after it is returned and pray to the Court to fix a date for appearance of the parties in the said Court and request that the notice of the date so fixed be given to the parties by the court. Since in the present case, the Court was of the opinion that because of its lacking territorial jurisdiction, the plaint was required to be returned, the court ought to have intimated its decision to the plaintiff so as to enable it to move appropriately in the matter. However, it was only an irregularity which would not vitiate the impugned order. It is open to the plaintiff to move appropriately in this Court and make submissions as could be made in the trial court and direction can be given to the parties to appear in the Court in which the plaintiff proposes to present the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 10A.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that her oral request may be considered by this Court as request/application under Order 7 Rule 10A CPC. Counsel for the respondent has agreed that the respondent would not insist upon a notice being served upon them by the Bombay Court and the respondents would appear in the Court in Bombay pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant is, however, not aware as to in which court in Bombay the plaint is to be presented after it is returned by the Court in Delhi. She requests for a short adjournment to inform the Court as to in which Court the plaintiff intends to present the plaint after it is returned by the Court in Delhi. At request, adjourned to 19th August, 2003.