JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

2. The appellant had initiated action in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad for recovery of certain amounts said to be due from the first respondent. The appellant filed the case on a contract executed by the first respondent. On filing the suit for recovery of the amounts, the respondents raised the objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Court and placed reliance on Clause (21) of the contract. The trial court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court by its order dated September 1. 1983. Thereon, the appellant carried the matter in revision to the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order made in C.R.No.20/84 dated August 17,1987 upheld the view of the trial Court and dismissed the revision. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that S.20,of C.P.C.provides that where cause of action had arisen partly within territorial jurisdiction of one court or partly in another Court it would be open to the parties to avail of the remedy at the Court where part of the cause of action had arisen. In support thereof, he contended that the contract was entered into and executed within the