1. Heard Shri R.G Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.M. Singbal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellant had no territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.

4. The above Second Appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 7/09/2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.46/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 31/12/2010 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.54/2010 was quashed and set aside.

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit for recovery and for possession of some movable assets. The said suit was filed on the basis of an agreement which was executed between the appellant and the respondent. In view of the default committed by the respondent, the suit came to be filed for re