GOPI NATH, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs application in revision against an order of the 5th Addl. District Judge, Aligarh, dated 9-5-1975 directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to a proper court. Accord­ing to the learned District Judge, Small Cause Court Judge at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the suit were as follows :
(2.) THE opposite party no. 2 invited tenders for the supply of metallic plates to it. The office of the Director of Census Operations, Punjab (opposite party no. 2) was situated at Chandigarh. The plaintiff submitted quotations along with a call deposit receipt of Rs.2000/- by way of security for the due perfor­mance of the contract which may be entered into between the parties. Accord­ing to the plaintiff the agreement fell through and it became entitled to the refund of the security-deposit of Rs.2,000/- made by it to the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the bargain was never concluded and no completed contract came into existence between the parties. Thus the defendant could not forfeit the amount for breach of any term of the contract. The defence delivered was that the plaintiff had entered into an agree­ment with defendants for the supply of metallic plates to the defendant no. 2. It failed to supply the goods and thus committed a breach of the contract rendering the deposit to be forfeited. The defendant no. 2 accordingly forfeited the deposit of Rs.2,000/-, It was further pleaded that the Civil Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to try to the suit as no part of the action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. According to the defendants the suit could, if at all, be filed' at Chandigarh.
(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit on the findings that there was no con­cluded contract between the parties and no breach had been committed by the plaintiff of the agreement hence it was entitled to a refund of the security deposited made with the defendant no. 2. It further held that the suit was cognizable at Aligarh as the cause of action for the same had arisen there, the money being refundable to the plaintiff at its place of business at Aligarh. On revision by the defendants the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the order of the trial court on the ground that the Civil Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no part of the cause of action had arisen at Aligarh. The learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that it should return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has come in revision to this court.;