Bhagwati, J.

1. His Lordship, after stating facts, proceeded:] Before I proceed to discuss the merits of the case, I shall first deal with what could have been urged as a preliminary objection or could have been asked to be tried as a preliminary issue, viz., whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The contention of the defendant in this behalf has been that he was residing in and carrying on business in Delhi that the contract was made by the acceptance by him of the offer of the plaintiffs in Delhi, that the performance of the contract was to be made and was in fact offered by the plaintiffs to him in Delhi, that the breach of the contract, if any, took place in Delhi and that therefore the whole cause of action having arisen in Delhi, this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit in spite of the leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent having been granted. It is clear on the correspondence which has been put in before me that the offer to sell the 110 shares, though communicated by the plaintiffs by their telegram dated 3-10-1946, was received by the defendant in Delhi and he accepted the said offer by his telegram dated 4-10-1946 in Delhi. There is als