Territorial jurisdiction and exclusive forum clauses require clear assent; unilateral purchase order wording did not oust Keonjhar court jurisdiction.

Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, parties may validly choose one forum only by clear agreement, and exclusion of another court cannot be inferred from ambiguous terms or unilateral recitals. A printed jurisdiction clause on the defendant's purchase order, without the plaintiff's assent, did not amount to a binding exclusive forum agreement. The alleged supporting letter was not proved to have been duly sent or received, and no presumption of receipt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arose on the facts. As the cause of action arose within Keonjhar and no effective Calcutta-only clause was established, the Keonjhar court retained territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Keonjhar court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and whether the parties had validly excluded that jurisdiction in favour of Calcutta.

Analysis: Where two courts have jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, parties may validly agree to choose one of them, but exclusion of jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred and must arise from clear express words or necessary implication. A unilateral recital printed on the defendant's purchase order, without the plaintiff's assent, did not by itself amount to a binding agreement ousting the Keonjhar court's jurisdiction. The subsequent attempt to rely on a separate letter was not proved to have been duly sent or received, and the facts did not support drawing the presumption of receipt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since the cause of action arose within Keonjhar and no effective exclusive Calcutta forum clause was established, the local court's jurisdiction remained intact.

Conclusion: The Keonjhar court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, and the alleged Calcutta-only jurisdiction clause was not binding on the plaintiff.

---