JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This is an application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') whereby the defendant seeks the dismissal of this suit on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of approximately Rs. 33.06 lakhs which the plaintiff claimed as the price of the goods (cast iron pipes) which were supposedly supplied to the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to para 46 of the plaint wherein it is stated as under:-
That the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the bills raised by the plaintiff mentioned that the disputes would be subject to Delhi jurisdiction.
2. The learned counsel for the defendant, while referring to the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, states that this is the only statement made in the plaint with regard to this court having jurisdiction. He further submitted that the defendant has no office in Delhi. Its registered office is in Mumbai and, in point of fact, the defendant does not carry on any business in Delhi and, in any event, there is no such averment contained in the plaint. He further submitted that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi inasmuch as the bills which were raised by the plaintiff on the defendant were issued at Pune to the defendant at Mumbai. The goods were also received by the defendant in Mumbai. Therefore, according to him, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. As such, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. He submitted that merely because the bills raised by the plaintiff on the defendant contained the words subject to Delhi jurisdiction would not confer any jurisdiction in the courts at Delhi unless and until the courts at Delhi otherwise had jurisdiction under the CPC. He submitted that this was a well-settled proposition and in support whereof he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. .
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, contended that this court has territorial jurisdiction on account of two factors. The first factor being that the bills raised by the plaintiff had the words subject to Delhi jurisdiction printed on the top and goods against these bills were accepted by the defendant which resulted in an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. The second ground contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi inasmuch as the defendant has approached the plaintiff seeking to purchase cast iron pipes at Delhi some time in December, 1999.
4. Insofar as the latter contention is concerned, the same can be disposed of straightway by a reference to para 2 of the plaint where, though it is mentioned that the defendant approached the plaintiff for purchase of cast iron pipes, it is not indicated that such an approach was made at Delhi. Therefore, this ground raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not have any merit. Insofar as the ground with regard to the bills containing the endorsement subject to Delhi jurisdiction is concerned, the same is also not tenable because the law is well-settled. In Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. , the Supreme Court clearly held that it is not open to the parties to confer, by their agreement, jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Code. Before this court could have territorial jurisdiction in the matter by agreement between the parties, it must be shown that this court would, in any event, have had jurisdiction under the Code. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Therefore, the argument that the parties had by agreement conferred jurisdiction in the courts in Delhi would be of no avail to the plaintiff.
5. In this view of the matter, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the plaint is returned to the plaintiff with liberty to file the same in the appropriate court. The IA as well as the suit stand disposed of. IA No. 6308/2005 has also become infructuous and the same is also disposed of as such.
dusty.