Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) NONE appears for the respondent despite service. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. By this appeal, the impugned order dtd. 27.05.2000 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No. 3, Udaipur has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the learned Court below returned the plaint of suit No. 319/1996 (22 of 1989) -M/s. Narendra and Co. vs. Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for proper presentation under Order 10 C.P.C. holding that as per Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit could be filed against the defendant only at Jaipur where its head -office of defendant -company was situated and since no cause of action arose at Udaipur, the plaint was liable to be returned for proper presentation.
(2.) THE learned trial Court in the impugned order dt. 27.05.2000 has found that the contract for transportation of material for defendant - company was signed at Jaipur and not at Udaipur and the payment to the plaintiff was also made at Jaipur and even the negotiations and tender took place at Jaipur and therefore, no part of cause of action arose at Udaipur so as to vest the Court at Udaipur with the jurisdiction to maintain the suit in question at Udaipur. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned order and perusal of record of the case, this Court is satisfied that there is no evidence on the record to show that cause of action for present money recovery suit under the contract in question arose at Udaipur. Since contract and negotiations with the plaintiff, all took place at Jaipur, the head -office of the defendant -company, it cannot be said that part of cause of action arose at Udaipur. The place of office of plaintiff himself is not relevant in view of clear provisions of Section 20 of the C.P.C. and even Explanation thereto, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant is also of little avail, unless cause of action can be established to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Udaipur Court. That having not been done, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal of plaintiff is, thus, found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as opposite party.;