The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the trial stage based on evidence, and for the purpose of the application, only the plaint and the documents in support of the plaint need be looked into.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the defendant under order 7 rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

( 2 ) BEFORE the question of territorial jurisdiction is examined, it would be necessary to set out the nature of the suit and the averments made in the plaint. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of rs. 32,38,479. 40 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant. The plaintiff is a foreign company incorporated in the Netherlands and has a branch office at 100a, The Capital Court, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. As stated in the plaint, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of medical care equipments to various institutions and hospitals worldwide. The defendant, on the other hand, is a company which runs a private hospital engaged in providing medical care. The plaintiff has been supplying medical equipments to the defendant for this purpose. It is stated in the plaint that the parties have been doing business with each other since October, 1998 and the modus operandi of the business is that the defendant used to place orders on the plaintiff for various medical equipments and that the plaintiff, on receipt of such orders, used to issue invoices upon the defendant and deliver ordered equipments against a receipt. The price of the equipment as quoted in the invoice was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. For this purpose, the parties maintained a running account between themselves and the defendant used to make on account payments which were accepted by the plaintiff from time to time. As per the plaint, the total value of the material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant throughout the course of their business transactions came to about Rs. 3,54,799. 32 in respect of the materials supplies through the meadox Division and Rs. 69,65,380. 75 through the Scimed Division of the plaintiff. The total receipts against such supplies amounted to Rs. 1,48,279. 66 and Rs. 43,92,064. 01 in respect of the supplies from the said Meadox and Scimed divisions respectively. According to the plaintiff, this left a debit balance of Rs. 2,06,519. 66 and Rs. 25,73,316. 74 in respect of the Meadox and Scimed division supplies respectively. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the total debit balance in the book of accounts of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant was Rs. 27,79,839. 40 which was outstanding against the defendant and which the defendant was liable to pay along with interest @ 18% per annum as per the market trade and usage. Paragraph 11 of the plaint reveals that a legal notice dated 02. 06. 2001 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant whereby the defendant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 34,88,695. 00 as was due on that date along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notice till realisation. The said amount was obviously not paid by the defendant and, therefore, the present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'cpc') has been instituted by the plaintiff. Paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as under:-

"17. That the cause of action arose in Delhi. The medical care equipment was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. The payment was received by the plaintiff at Delhi. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. "

In view of these averments contained in the plaint, it is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the contents of paragraph 17 of the plaint are vague. The learned counsel for the defendant with reference to the contents of the present application (IA no 193/2005) as also the written statement filed by it, submitted that the entire