Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 20

Principle of forum non-convenience'
It is appropriate to repeat that principle of forum non-convenience can be applied rarely when there are overwhelming facts and interest of justice requires that a Court that has jurisdiction should not adjudicate the suit/legal proceedings. The said principle is not to be applied liberally but with great caution and care and only when failure to do so, shall result in abuse of process of Court and cause grave injustice.
Principle does not confer jurisdiction on a court contrary to Section 20 of the Code but applies when a court otherwise has jurisdiction but for valid, sound and good reasons does not wish to entertain a suit . Plaints directed to be returned and rejected.
It is not disputed by both the parties that principle of forum non- convenience is a part of common law or private international law but the question is whether the said principle can be applied even when a party invokes territorial jurisdiction of a Court and satisfies requirements of Section 20(c} of the Code in the sense that apart of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. This question can be answered by examining whether Section 20 of the Code prohibits and oust applicability of the said principle. [Para 14]
As stated above, Section 20 of the Code gives dominus litis to the plaintiff to file a suit in the courts located at a place where defendant resides or works for gain or where cause of action, partly or wholly arises. However, it is also equally well settled that in spite of Section 20 of the Code, parties by a contract can confer sole or exclusive jurisdiction to courts at one location which otherwise has jurisdiction and exclude jurisdiction of other courts. In other words, it is accepted that Section 20 of the Code does not bar or prohibit parties from entering into a contract or mutual understand¬ing that courts only at a particular location will have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the disputes and oust jurisdiction of courts located at other locations. The only condition is that the exclusive or the sole Court should otherwise have territorial jurisdiction to decide the disputes in terms of Section 20 of the Code (Refer A.B.C. Laminart v. A.P. Agencies, 1989(2) SCC 163;. The legal position, therefore, recognizes that Section 20 of the Code does not bar or prohibit parties from entering into a mutual arrangement restricting territorial jurisdiction of the court which can entertain legal proceedings. Section 20 of the Code, therefore, stipulates that plain¬tiffs have dominus litis to determine and decide the location where they want to institute a suit but this can be restricted by a mutual contract. [Para 22]
In view of the above interpretation of Section 20 of the Code, it cannot be said that the principle of forum non-convenience is alien, barred or prohibited by Section 20 the Code. Section 20 of the Code indicates and specifies the courts which can have jurisdiction. Principle of forum non- convenience does not confer jurisdiction on a court contrary to Section 20 of the Code but applies when a court otherwise has jurisdiction but for valid, sound and good reasons does not wish to entertain a suit. Section 20 of the Code, does not prohibit or bar the principle of forum non-conve¬nience. [Para 23]
The present case, therefore, falls within one of those rare cases where a party has deliberately and intentionally invoked jurisdiction of a court, which has jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Section 20 of the Code but the interest of justice and equity requires that the plaintifffs) should be asked to approach the court where parties are already litigating. The twin conditions for applying the principle of forum non-con¬venience are satisfied in the present case. Any decision on the advertisement of the defendant will necessarily call for examination and comments on the advertisement of the plaintiff(s), which is subject matter before the Bombay High Court. Any comment or observation in the orders passed by the Delhi High Court will cause confusion, possibility of conflicting decisions, which will cause prejudice to the parties. Interim application for injunction is still pending before Bombay High Court. The present case, therefore, is an exceptional case wherein principle of forum non-convenience should be applied. The plaintiff (s) were aware and have consciously and deliberately invoked jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the litigation and issues pending before the Bombay High Court. [Para 36]