1. This application in revision is by the defendant and arises out of an order of the court below deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction against it.

2. The opposite party is resident of a place Murliganj in the district of Saharsa and the petitioner is a firm carrying on business inter alia of commission agency in the town of Khagaria in the district of Begusarai. According to the plaintiff-opposite partys case an oral agreement of agency was entered into between the parties at Murliganj whereby the defendant was to sell the plaintiffs rice at Khagaria. According to this agreement the plaintiff despatched certain consignments of rice to be delivered to the defendant with Self Railway Receipts. Some payments were made but according to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay a sum of Rs. 3695.69 in spite of repeated demands. Therefore, the above suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madhepura which lies in the district of Saharsa. According to the plaintiffs case the Madhepur court had the necessary territorial jurisdiction on two grounds, namely, (1) the contract of agency itself was made at Murliganj and (2) there was an agreement between the parties that payments were to be made at the plaintiffs place. The defendant raised a preliminary issue in the written statement regarding absence of territorial jurisdiction of the Court below and challenged both the above grounds.

3. The Additional Subordinate Judge took evidence on this question and on a consideration of the same, came to a definite conclusion that neither the agreement of agency was formed at Murliganj nor there was any agreement between the parties for the payment at the plaintiffs place.

4. However, in spite of recording the above two findings against the plaintiff, he has decided this issue against the defendant on the basis of certain payments that were made by it to the plaintiff, namely, two payments of Rupees 15000.00 each by demand drafts on the Katihar branch of Central Bank of India, a place different than the place of residence of the plaintiff, which is not disputed. Although the drafts were received by the plaintiff at his place of business, Murliganj, the payments of the said drafts were actually received by him at Katihar and, therefore, that would not furnish the necessary territorial jurisdiction to the Madhipura court where the suit was instituted. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, relying upon a single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Gouri Shankar Bajoria V/s. Ram Banka, AIR 1963 Pat 398, took a view that the place where the draft itself was handed over to the plaintiff would also furnish him a cause of action and, accordingly, the Madhipura court had the ncessary territorial jurisdiction. The defendant, therefore, has come to this Court.

5. Mr. J. C. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has seriously challenged the findings of the court below and contended that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction in deciding the question of jurisdiction. According to him, the court below having decided the bundle of facts on which the plaintiff relied to bring his case within the jurisdiction of Madhipura court, it was not right in deciding the question of jurisdiction in his favour on the basis of the payments by the two Bank drafts on a view that part of the cause of action accrued to him at that place. He also contended that the court below has not correctly appreciated the principle decided in the Bajorias case AIR 1963 Pat 398 (supra). Mr. J. C. Sinha seems to be right in both his contentions. On my reading of Bajorias case, it is not an authority for the abstract proposition that a part of the cause of action would arise at any place on mere delivering a cheque to a person by the debtor. In that case certain cheques were issued by the defendant at Giridih, but the money was drawn at a Bombay Bank, the place where the plaintiff a