Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.1993 holding that the Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The plaint has been ordered to be returned.

2. While arriving at the conclusion learned Trial Judge has held as under:

"Obviously, the payments were to be made at Faridabad and the plea raised by the defendant is not devoid of any merit and substance."

3. Further finding returned is that admittedly the factory of the defendant is situated at Faridabad and the bills on which suit was based I evidenced that the goods were supplied at Faridabad. It has been further held that merely because defendant had one of its office at Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi.

4. It may be noted that the plaint has been returned without any evidence being recorded.

5. Issue therefore has to be decided with reference to the averments made in the plaint and no more.

6. A perusal of the plaint evidences that suit sought recovery of Rs.80,000/-. Defendant, a company registered Under the Companies Act was sued at Delhi with respect to not only its registered office being at Delhi but also on the avermen