ORDER :

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.16-B/2011 whereby, the trial court has directed for return of the Plaint holding it to be barred by territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of CPC. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff, who is the Proprietor of Ritika Enterprises, instituted a suit claiming recovery of Rs.7,47,499/- by submitting interi-alia that he supplied spare parts of the machine described in Plaint schedule-'A' to the Defendants i.e. Somna Colliery, Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.). According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have failed to make their payment despite the delivery of the alleged materials, which led to the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 16.09.2009. However, in spite of that, the same was not paid, therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature instituted on 25.09.2010.

3. While contesting the claim, an objection was raised by the Defendants regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court by submitting inter alia that the Plaintiff's office is at Bijuri and the disputed materials alleged to have been delivered was at Somna Colliery, Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.), which is beyond its jurisdiction, therefore the suit as framed and instituted, is barred by jurisdiction.

4. Based upon the aforesaid objection, an issue namely issue No.3 was framed which reads as under :-

“Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?”

5. After considering the aforesaid issue, it was observed by the trial Court while taking note of the explanation to Section 20 of CPC and that by relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company reported in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 270 that since the cause of action has arisen at Somna Colliery, Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.), where the disputed materials alleged to have been delivered, therefore, the cause of action has arisen at the said place which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, the claim as made has been held to be barred by jurisdiction under Section 20 of CPC and the Plaint has been directed to be returned in exercise of the powers enumerated under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for its presentation before the competent Court having its territorial jurisdiction by its separate order, which was passed on the same day, i.e. 23.12.2016. This is the order, which has been impugned by way of this Appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the Court below, while misinterpreting the provisions prescribed under Section 20 of CPC, has erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him, the suit can be instituted where Defendants reside or where the cause of action arises and since the business of Defendants is at Manendragarh, therefore, the suit ought not to have been held to be barred by jurisdiction.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the order under Appeal as passed by the Court below.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

9. From perusal of the averments made in the Plaint and the notice issued by the Plaintiff on 16.09.2009, it appears that the alleged spare parts of the machine were supplied to Defendant No.5 i.e. at Somna Colliery, Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.). According to the Plaintiff, when payment was not made despite delivery of the said materials, he has been constrained to institute the suit for recovery of the said amount. The cause of action thus appears to have arisen at Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.) where the