The respondent filed O.S.No.1557 of 2006 against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of Rs.1,08,042/-. The suit claim arises out of a contract between the parties. The petitioner invited tenders for supply of Art Paper Material for the year 2004-05, and the tender submitted by the respondent was accepted on 30-04-2004. Material worth Rs.24,01,373/-was supplied by the respondent, and the entire amount, except a sum of Rs.1,08,042/-, was paid by the petitioner. The said amount was withheld, on the ground that some quantity, supplied by the respondent, did not accord with specifications.

On receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner filed written-statement. Apart from denying its liability to pay the amount, the petitioner raised an objection, as to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. It has also filed I.A.No.174 of 2008, under Rule 2 (ii)(a) of Order XIV C.P.C., with a prayer to pronounce the judgment on the preliminary issue, as to the territorial jurisdiction. The I.A. was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order dated 11-08-2009. Hence, this revision.

Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender notice was issued from the office of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, and its administrative office exists at that place, and there was absolutely no basis for the respondent to file the suit in a Court at Hyderabad. He contends that the contract was also concluded at Tirupati, and the material was supplied to that place. Learned counsel submits that the mere fact that the material was supplied from Hyderabad, does not constitute the basis, to file a suit in a Court at that place.

Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that, in the order of acceptance, the petitioner-Devastanams themselves have mentioned that the disputes shall be subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction, and it is not at all open to them to raise an objection, as to the territorial jurisdiction, when a suit is filed at Hyderabad. He submits that, not only the material was supplied from Hyderabad, but also correspondence has ensued there, and no exception can be taken to the filing of the suit in a Court at Hyderabad.

Both the learned counsel have placed reliance upon certain decided cases.

The suit filed by the respondent was, for recovery of certain amount, under a contract. The existence of the contract is not disputed, but the controversy is only, as to the nature of performance thereof. The petitioner raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, in which the suit was filed. According to them, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of the trial Court, at Hyderabad. The plea is referable to Section 20 of C.P.C., and it reads, as under:

“Sec.20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.—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.

Explanation—A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subord