CCCA No.169 of 1999 is filed against the judgment and decree of the IV Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, dated 29.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.297 of 1989.

2. The suit was filed by Pioneer Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., initially and later as per the orders dated 21.02.1997 in I.A.No.878 of 1996 in O.S.No.297 of 1989, the plaintiff’s name was amended to National Plywood Industries Ltd. The defendants are Plywood Syndicate, a partnership firm and its two partners. The suit was filed for recovery of money due towards the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant with interest and costs. The defendants filed the written statement denying the suit claim and stating that if the accounts are actually taken and credit was given certain claims of the defendants, the suit will have to be dismissed and the plaintiff will have to pay the amount back. After the amendment to the plaint in the cause title and additional written statement were also filed.

3. The lower Court framed issues and also framed an issue of territorial jurisdiction. Ex.A.1 to A.107 were marked for plaintiff. Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked for defendants. One witness each was examined by plaintiff and defendants. After trial, the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present appeal.

4. As it is a first appeal, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants only, for the sake of convenience.

5. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff.

6. The first and foremost point that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is that the Court at Hyderabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As per the defendants, the entire transaction took place in Vijayawada and merely because the plaintiff’s head office is at Hyderabad, the suit is not maintainable. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff had a depot in Vijayawada in which orders were placed by the defendants and material was also supplied from the said depot to the defendants, who admittedly are carrying with business in Vijaywada. Hence, learned counsel argued that the entire cause of action arose at Vijayawada alone and that no part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad or within the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The lower Court also framed an issue on this point. The learned counsel cited the judgment reported in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati v. Shree Distributors, Hyderabad, 2010 (6) ALD 484 in support of his submission.

7. However, a reading of the entire evidence reveals that the plaintiff stated that the defendants used to purchase the plywood from the office at Hyderabad and that the payments were made sometimes by cash and sometimes by cheques and demand drafts. The defendants in their written statement in page-2 at para-3 state that correspondence with Hyderabad office and making of payments to Hyderabad office for the sake of convenience will not enable the plaintiff to file the suit at Hyderabad. Thus, the defendants admitted the payments were made at Hyderabad. The witness examined on behalf of the defendants as DW.1 is the partner of the first defendant firm. On 31.07.1998 during the course of his cross-examination, he clearly admits that he used to make payments to the plaintiff at Hyderabad office and also correspondence was with Hyderabad office. In addition, the correspondence clearly shows that the issues relating to the suit transaction alone were discussed in the exhibits filed and most of the letters are addressed to the plaintiff’s office at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

8. It is, therefore, clear that issues relating to this suit; the transactions covered therein and issues pertaining to the cause of action for this Court including the payments were made at Hyderabad. Therefore, a part of the course of action definitely arose at Hyderabad. Consequently, the Court at Hyderaba