2022 SCMR 2044
Ss. 16, 17 & O. VII, R. 10---Clause of Agreement grating exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Courts in place "L"---Plaintiffs filing suit for cancellation of Agreement in Civil Court of place "S"---Application for return of plaint filed by defendant (petitioner) under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. dismissed by the Civil Court and High Court---Held, that on the basis of Agreement s in question lands situated in place "L" as well as in place "S" were exchanged through registered exchange deeds by or on behalf of the parties to the Agreement ---Main Agreement was arrived at between the parties and signed at place "L" and in furtherance of that Agreement the addendum and exchange deeds were executed and registered at place "L"---Thus, jurisdiction in the matter was with both the courts i.e. at place "S" where the suit was filed as well as at place "L" where the document was registered and some of the property was situated---However the Clause of the Agreement grating exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Courts in place "L" was binding upon the parties, therefore, the civil court at place "L" had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed; impugned orders of Civil Court and High Court were set aside, and the application moved by the defendant (petitioner) under Order VII, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was allowed with the direction that plaint was to be returned to the plaintiffs and, if so advised, they may file it in the civil court at place "L"
Ss. 16 & 17---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Agreement between parties granting exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Courts of a particular place/city---Legality---Parties cannot be restrained to enforce their right in an ordinary court of law but if by mutual Agreement between the parties a particular court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is selected for the determination of their dispute, there appears to be nothing wrong or illegal in it or opposed to public policy
0 Comments