This appeal is from the order dated 29th September 2010 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission, by which the State Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant (appellant herein) on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, while observing as under: e are not inclined to agree with the contention of the counsel. The copy of the agreement filed by the complainant clearly mentions the apartment in question is situated in Gurgaon and any complaint in this regard, shall be filed only at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. Had there been no agreement between the parties about the jurisdiction, the Delhi Forum would certainly have jurisdiction to try the case, in accordance with Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but since the parties have already agreed that the courts at Gurgaon alone and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh shall have the jurisdiction the complaint can only lie at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. In view of the agreement, the complainant is estopped and cannot resile from the agreement. Justice fair play and judicial ethics demand that the parties should be made to adhere to their mutual agreement, and as such, the only courts/ Forum at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana shall have jurisdiction to try the complaint. We therefore, hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Let the complaint be therefore, returned to the complainant to present it, if he so desires, in Gurgaon in the State of Haryana 2. This order was passed in limine without issuing notice to the Opposite party DLF Home Developers Ltd., DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 3. I have heard Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ complainant. As pointed out by Ms. Mendiratta, the issue in this appeal is limited. She has drawn attention to the order of this Commission dated 11.04.2002 in FA No. 142 of 2001 against the order dated 09.04.2001 of this very State Commission in Complaint Case No. 592 of 1992. The relevant part of this Commission order reads as under: hat led the State Commission to pass this order was clause 24 of the agreement for allotment of residential flat to the appellant. It is stated that ny dispute arising out of this agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of Lucknow courts only State Commission also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239 to hold that only the courts in Lucknow would have jurisdiction. We do not think State Commission examined the whole issue in a pragmatic manner. Complainant is a consumer and raised a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To help and assist a consumer and to achieve the objects of the Act, Section 11 of the Act was amended. This Section relates to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Now a complaint could be filed against the opposite party not only at the place where he actually or voluntarily reside or personally works for gain but also where he carries on business or has branch office. The words arries on business or has a branch officewere added by the amending Act of 1993. Jurisdiction of a District Forum is exclusively covered by Section 11 of the Act. For this we do not have to refer any provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any provision of the agreement which oust the jurisdiction of a District Forum even from a place where the opposite party has a branch office cannot be held to be valid or binding. Moreover, the clause on which the complainant was non-suited refers to the jurisdiction of Lucknow Courts. District Forum is not a court as understood in the Code of Civil Procedure. That clause in the agreement will have no meaning as far as jurisdiction of the District Forum where the opposite party has even branch office is concerned. National Commission has already taken a view on this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded in the State Commission to decide the complaint in accordance with law 4. In respect of territorial jurisdiction, the facts of the case in FA No. 142 of 2001 are identical with those in this appeal and, therefore, the above-mentioned judgment of this Commission would squarely apply to this case also. 5. It may also be noticed that the address of the opposite party/ respondent is that of New Delhi (obvious from the cause title of the complaint). Further sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, he Act provides as under: urisdiction of the District Forum (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction;- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides of [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office] or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.(Emphasis supplied) Thus, even if, the State Commission was not aware of the above-mentioned decision dated 11.04.2002 of this Commission, the provisions of section 11 (2) (b) ought to have set all doubts to rest. It need not be reiterated that it would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act if the provisions of an agreement between a consumer and a service provider alone were to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. 6. As a result, the appeal is allowed in limine and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for adjudication in accordance with law. For this purpose, the appellant shall appear before the State Commission on 28th February 2011 for further directions.