$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 133/2026 & CM APPL. 30433/2026 BHOLA RAM PAPERS AND POWER PVT LTD. (THROUGH ITS A.R. SH. SHAILESH KUMAR) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jitender Kalra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, SPC with Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi & Ms. Rebina Rai, Advs. versus PARAGON SALES PVT LTD. (THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS) .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 09.07.2026 CM APPL. 30432/2026 (for exemption) CM APPL. 30434/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. FAO (COMM) 133/2026 2. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Court of first instance whereby the plaint filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been returned for presentation before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad. 3. The Appellant/Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendant, Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd., for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,99,970/- along with pendent lite interest @18% per annum. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51 4. It has been alleged that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and supply of kraft papers and newspaper print, writing papers, etc. It has been further claimed that, pursuant to the purchase orders placed by the Defendant, writing paper was supplied.However, the Defendant failed to pay the entire outstanding amount, though part payment had been made. 5. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the writing paper was supplied during the Financial Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. However, an amount of Rs.19,99,970/- remained unpaid during the Financial Year 2024-25. 6. The invoice issued by the Appellant contains the following clause: “All disputes subject to Moradabad Jurisdiction only 7. The Court of first instance held that, once the Appellant/Plaintiff had stipulated in its invoices that all disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Moradabad, the suit instituted at Delhi was not maintainable. 8. Learned Counsel representing the Appellant submits that the Respondent carries on business in New Delhi and that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was never intended to be acted upon. 9. It is well settled that the parties may, by agreement, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon one of the Courts having jurisdiction, provided a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. It is not the case of Appellant that no part of cause of action accrued in Moradabad. In the present case, the Plaintiff itself issued the invoices containing the exclusive jurisdiction clause. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot now contend that the said This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51 clause was never intended to be acted upon or was never agreed to. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the Appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference. The Court of first instance has merely returned the plaint while granting liberty to the Appellant to present the same before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 9, 2026/pd/dg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51