ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has jurisdiction to entertaint the suit – O.S. No. 2163 of 1987 – filed by the respondent herein for recovery of certain amounts from the petitioners, who are defendants therein?
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs due from the petitioners-defendants towards the value of the goods supplied by the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners-defendants filed a written statement denying their liability. A preliminary objection was raised in the written statement as to the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue relating to territorial jurisdiction as under:
“Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?”
The petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 95 of 1988 on 30-6-1988 under Order 14, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying the trial court to try and decide the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court as preliminary issue. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by order dt. 5-2-1990 holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by that decision, the present revision petition is filed.
3. It is the case of the petitioners-defendants that none of the defendants figured in the suit either reside or carry on business or personally work for gain within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is also the case of the Petitioners that no part of cause of action for the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. The subject-matter of the suit relates to certain transactions between the petitioners and the respondent and the first petitioner herein, as a firm, as also proprietary concern, has placed certain orders for supply of material with the branch as well as office of the respondent located at H. No. 4893, Phataknamak, I Floor, House Kazi, New Delhi and goods were supplied by the respondent to the first petitioner at New Delhi only and payments were also made by the first petitioner through various cheques and bank drafts on New Delhi Bank. The sales-tax on these transactions was effected as per the law of Sales tax applicable to the Union Territory of New Delhi. It is stated that all cheques, drafts and hundies were negotiated by the respondent at New Delhi only. It is further stated that the transactions between the first petitioner and the respondent were not inter-State Transactions, but they were intra-State transactions within the limits of New Delhi. The petitioners have no direct links with the respondent at Hyderabad either regarding placing of orders for supply of goods or for payment of amount for the goods supplied or for submitting sales-tax, excepting a condition in the two hundies that amounts are to be payable at Andhra Bank, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. It is also stated that excepting this condition, even payments for these two hundies have also been made at New Delhi. Thus, it is contended by the petitioners that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
4. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a detailed counter before the trial Court stating that the stand taken by the petitioners is false. It is stated that as admitted by the petitioners, in so far as the payment of amount covered by two hundies, becomes payable at Andhra Bank, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The allegation that payments were made at New Delhi is denied. It is further contended that the respondent has its factory at Patancheru, Medak and all the goods were supplied to the petitioners from the factory at Patancheru. In the absence of the petitioners failing to place any material in support of the contention that the amounts pertaining to the two hundies were also paid in New Delhi, the respondent contends, the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. It is relevant to examine the provisions of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code in this context:
“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
6. Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that in view of the clear provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. no cause of action arose for filing the suit in Hyderabad and therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction. He has also drawn my attention to the decisions in Union of India v. Ladulal Jain, and Hyderabad W.C.C. Association v. Authority, P. of W. Act, AIR 1962 A.P. 388. I am afraid, these decisions are not relevant in so far as the issues involved in the present case.
7. On the contrary, Smt. Vani, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that she has no dispute as to the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. She has stated that it is clear from the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. that it is open to the respondent-Plaintiff to sue the petitioners-defendants at the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the whole or any part of cause of action arose. According to her, a part of cause of action arose in Hyderabad. She contended that the subject-matter of the suit relates to the transactions between the first petitioner and the respondent and the first petitioner, as a firm and also a proprietary concern, had placed orders with the respondent to supply the material. One of the clauses, which provides for payment of hundies at Andhra Bank, Rashtrapathi Raod, Secunderabad, would clearly indicate that the court at Hyderabad has jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the decision in Munirangappa v. Venkatappa, AIR 1965 Mysore 316. In this decision, it is held that if a part of cause of action arises within the local limits of jurisdiction of a court, then such a court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try such suit irrespective of the extent of cause of action.
8. In the instant case, the condition that the amounts pertaining to two hundies are payable at Andhra Bank, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, has been accepted by the Petitioners-defendants and, therefore, I am of the opinion that part of cause of action for filing the suit arises within the jurisdiction of the court at Hyderabad.
9. In yet another decision in L.N. Gupta s. Tara Mani, it is held that when there is evidence to indicate the place where the parties to a contract intended that the debt was payable, then the court will hold that such a place for payment has been indicated in the contract itself and, therefore, when the place is indicated in the contract, that court would assume jurisdiction for entertaining the suit. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the place for payments insofar as two hundies are concerned, has been indicated as payable at Andhra Bank, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court dated 5-2-1990 in O.S. No. 2163 of 1987.
11. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.