D.S. Mathur, J.
1. This is an appeal by Kanpur Sugar Supply Company, Kanpur, plaintiff, against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing its appeal in respect of the special costs and at the same time directing that the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a competent court.
2. The plaintiff had placed certain orders with Harsukh Lal and Brothers, Rajkot, as commission agent. Certain disputes arose in connection with these business transactions and the plaintiff instituted a suit at Kanpur, the suit being for accounts and also for the recovery of money.
3. The trial court held that the suit was not cognizable by the Kanpur court and was also of the opinion that no amount was due to the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs and the plaintiff was further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as special costs. The plaintiff went up in appeal challenging both the orders. The learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the suit was not cognizable by Kanpur court and, therefore, directed return of the plaint. Even if it be assumed that a part of the cause of action arose at Kanpur, the present is a case where the plaintiff could not seek legal remedy before the courts at Kanpur. It was necessary for him to institute the suit before the Rajkot Courts. In the hundis and also the bills and letters, it was clearly written at the top. 'subject to Rajkot jurisdiction only'. The point for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, this amounted to a contract between the parties that only Rajkot courts shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. A contract between the parties can be direct or implied. Where there is only one transaction between the parties, it can be said that by accepting the hundi. or the bill, the receiver thereof was not agreeing to the condition that only Rajkot courts shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. He may accept the bill and take delivery of the goods to avoid unnecessary disputes. But where in spite of the clear provision as to the exclusive jurisdiction of Rajkot courts, the party places a fresh order and accepts the condition, no ether inference can be drawn except that both the parties had agreed that Rajkot courts alone shall have the exclusive jurisdiction. In the instant case, there had been many transactions between the parties and as already mentioned above the words 'subject to Rajkot Courts only were written on all the material documents including Hundis and bills. Consequently, the plaintiff had agreed and in the eye of law there was a contract that the legal remedy in respect of the disputes can be sought before the Rajkot Courts only.
5. The learned district Judge took a contrary view on the basis of two decisions of the Madras High Court, particulars of one are incorrect. Patel Bros. V. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd., (AIR 1959 Mad 227) is a case where the words printed were 'subject to Bombay jurisdiction'. It was held that this expression did not exclude the jurisdiction of other courts. It was for this reason that the suit was held to be cognizable by the courts at Madras. In the instant case, however, the words printed are 'subject to Rajkot jurisdiction only'. The word 'only' excludes the jurisdiction of other courts.
6. In view of the contract between the parties that remedy can be sought for before Rajkot Courts only, the courts at Kanpur could not take cognizance of the suit. The Additional District Judge was, therefore, right to order the return of the plaint.
7. The F. A. F. O. has thus no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs.