Heard. 2. In this appeal, there is challenge to order dated 14.1.2011, passed by the State Commission, Delhi. 3. Appellant filed a complaint U/S 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’) before the State Commission. With regard to territorial jurisdiction, appellant in para 19 of the complaint has averred as follows ; “That this Hon’ble Court has got pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and try the present complaint. The complainant is resident of Delhi. The application for allotment dated June 13, 2006 and letter of allotment dated June 13, 2006 between the complainant and the respondent were executed at New Delhi and all the cheque/drafts were issued and payable at New Delhi as per the schedule of payment of the respondent, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.” - 2 - 4. State Commission at preliminary stage of admission, in paras 7, 8 and 9 of its impugned order, made following observations ; “7. It should be noticed that the property is situated at Greater Noida. The cause of action will therefore, deemed to have arisen at Greater Noida. The Head Office of the OP developers is in Delhi. The agreement, and the payments were made in Delhi. The cause of action will, therefore, also arise in Delhi. Under law, therefore, the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen at both the places Greater Noida and Delhi. 8. The parties have agreed that for settlement of any dispute, the Greater Noida or Gautam Budh Nagar courts in Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction. The agreement between the parties in this regard, cannot therefore, be invalidated on the ground that the agreement confers jurisdiction upon a Court, which has no jurisdiction in law. The right to enter into an agreement is a constitutional right, and the courts have always upheld this right, unless specifically barred, by some legal provision. It would not be in keeping with the interest of justice and fair play, to allow a party to wriggle out of an agreement, on the ground that the law prescribes a particular mode or method. We have to distinguish between a procedure which the law forbids, and which the law provides. The hallowed principles of law is that, which is not specifically forbidden is permissible. 9. Applying the aforementioned principle to the question in hand, it will be seen that though the law provides a particular territorial Forum for settlement of disputes between the parties, yet it does not prohibit agreement for a separate territorial jurisdiction. The legal position is that if the parties have agreed, to dispute being decided by one of the courts having legal jurisdiction in the matter, the matter should be decided by that court, in accordance. - 3 - 5. Accordingly, State Commission ordered for return of the complaint for presentation before the appropriate forum in Agra in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that as per observations made by the State Commission, as the cause of action is deemed to have arisen at both the places, that is, Greater Noida as well as Delhi, under these circumstances, Delhi Court, certainly has the jurisdiction. 8. Section 17 (2) of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the State Commission and the same reads as under ; “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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 or 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 State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution ; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” - 4 – 9. Since, State Commission has observed in its impugned order that the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen at both the places at Greater Noida as well as Delhi, so it would be within the domain of the appellant, as to at which place he should file his complaint. 10. Since, complaint has been filed before the State Commission, Delhi, under these circumstances, State Commission, Delhi has all the jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. 11. We, therefore, accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission. We, accordingly, direct the State Commission, Delhi to deal with the complaint of the appellant, in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ……………………………...J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ……………………………... (VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Sonia/9 | 
