- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 338 OF 2016 (RES) BETWEEN: M/S AMARESHWARA COTTON TRADERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTMERS; 1. SRI MURUGENDRA R PATIL, S/O RAOSAHEB B., PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT AMRUTHA V PATIL W/O VISHWANATH PATIL, AGED BOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH R/O D.NO.3338, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MCC "B" BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R GOPAL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 TRIVENDRUM, KERALA STATE. 2. M/S SITARAM TEXTILES LTD., COMPANY IMCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUNKENNAM, THRISSUR-680 002. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER M/S SITARAM TEXTILES LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE,-680 002 4. THE MANAGER (MATERIALS) M/S SITARAM TEXTILES LTD., THRISSUR, KERALA STATE-680002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL., ADVOCATE FOR R3; STATE OF KERALA R1 SERVED; M/S SITARAM TEXTILES LTD., R2 SERVED; M/S SITARAM TEXTILES BY ITS MANAGER (MATERIALS) R4 SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.110/2014 (OLD NO.356/2004) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Siji Malayil, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3. 2. The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of the money came to be filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Davangere in O.S. No.110/2014 (old O.S.No. 356/2004), in respect of sale of cotton on credit basis from plaintiff's firm to the defendant No.2. 3. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the purchase order mentioned that the dispute, if any, is restricted to Courts at State of Kerala, in the terms and conditions of the purchase order and for want of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, contended that the said purchase order is a printed form and it is not a valid and conscious contract that has been entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 mere printed clauses would not take away the jurisdiction at the Courts at Kerala and therefore, dismissal of the suit by the trial Court by answering Issue No.2, holding that the Court at Davanagere did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit cannot be countenanced in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd., reported in ILR 1991 KAR 4100 and in the case of United India Corporation Ltd., Vs. Associated Transportation Corporation Ltd., reported in AIR 1988 Kerala 36. 7. Per contra, Sri. Siji Malayil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would support the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that the transaction no doubt has taken place at Davanagere. But the purchase order which has been the contract for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 purchase of the cotton by the defendants from the plaintiff clearly mentions a clause that any dispute with regard to the contract of supply of cotton and payment of money shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of State of Kerala. 10. In the teeth of such a clause, filing of the suit before the Courts at Davanagere has resulted in dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial Judge holding that there is no territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the suit in view of the purchase order from which the goods have been supplied to the defendant. 11. In this regard, it is just and necessary for this Court to place reliance on the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A. P. Agencies Salem reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163 wherein at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 15, it is held as under: '' 7. The first question to be decided, therefore, is whether clause 11 as aforesaid formed part of the agreement. Mr Javali submits that Ex. B-1 is an order of Confirmation No. 68/59 dated 2-10-1974 from the Sales Executive for the first appellant to the respondent acknowledging the receipt of their order and registering the same subject to the terms and conditions “overleaf”. The general terms and conditions printed overleaf included the aforesaid clause 11. We are unable to agree. Admittedly the parties have transacted the business on inter alia basis of clause 11. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that clause 11 formed part of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 the agreement and the parties would be bound by it so long as they would be bound by the contract itself. It is not open to the respondent to deny existence of clause 11. The submission of Mr Javali has, therefore, to be rejected. 8. The next question is whether clause 11 is valid, and if so, what would be its effect? As clause 11 formed part of the agreement it would be valid only if the parties could have validly agreed to it. It is common knowledge that the law of contract only prescribes certain limiting principles within which parties are free to make their own contracts. An agreement enforceable at law is a contract. An agreement which purports to oust the jurisdiction of the court absolutely is contrary to public policy and hence void. Each of the citizens has the right to have his legal position determined by the ordinary tribunal except, of course, in a contract (a) when there is an arbitration clause which is valid and binding under the law, and (b) when parties to a contract agree as to the jurisdiction to which disputes in respect of the contract shall be subject. “It has long been established”, say Cheshire and Fifoot, “that a contract which purports to destroy the right of one or both of the parties to submit questions of law to the courts is contrary to public policy and is void pro tanto.” However, arbitration is a statutory mode of settlement; and as a matter of commercial law and practice parties to a contract may agree as to the jurisdiction to which all or any disputes on or arising out of the contract shall be subject. ….. 15. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors.'' 12. As could be seen from the above principles of law, if the one or more Courts are having jurisdiction to entertain a suit, parties by way of contract can invest the jurisdiction in any one of the Courts and by such investing the jurisdiction to any one of the Courts, the jurisdiction of the other Court would naturally get extinguished. 13. Therefore, the purchase order being relied on by the learned Trial Judge for the purpose of holding that the Courts at Davanagere did not have the jurisdiction cannot be faulted with. 14. Having said so, the suit could not have been dismissed by the trial Court. But the plaint ought to have been returned for the plaintiff for presenting before the proper Court as is contemplated under Order VII Rule 10. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40915 CRP No. 338 of 2016 15. Thus, dismissal of the suit by the trial Court has resulted in injustice and therefore, the present revision petition needs to be allowed in part. 16. Hence, following the order: ORDER (i) Revision petition allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the finding of the trial Court that the Courts at Davanagere did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit, dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction is hereby set aside and by acting under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10, the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3