ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. Plaintiff company has filed the present suit under summary provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „CPC?) for recovery of Rs.38,40,000/- against the defendant company based on a contract, in accordance of which it had paid US$ 80,000 vie T/T (telegraphic transfer) against the order of aluminum composite panels with due intimation vide letter dated 8th November, 2005. Since defendant did not deliver the goods, hence this suit for recovery of the advance paid.

2. Defendant put in appearance, on receipt of summons for appearance, on 19th April, 2009. Thereafter summons for judgment were served upon the defendant and it filed leave to defend application being IA No.12874/2009. This application was dismissed on 7th October, 2009, for non-appearance on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter on an application of the defendant for restoration of the said IA, the application was restored vide detailed order dated 2nd July, 2010.

3. The said application has been duly contested by the plaintiff. Foremost objection of the defendant is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

4. Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has submitted that defendant has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Court in its application for leave to defend the suit. It is settled principle of law that jurisdiction of a court, being question of law, can be considered at any stage even if not specifically pleaded in the application or in the written statement. Therefore, defendant is within its right to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, though not specifically pleaded in the application for leave to defend. The Court is also within its right to determine if it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit especially, when it has been questioned by the defendant.

5. Mr. Puneet Khurana, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has submitted that defendant is a company having its corporate office at 55 Industrial Area, Sector 1, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Transaction in question was entered into between the parties through correspondence at the corporate office of the defendant and therefore, this Court at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that defendant has its office at 28, Ashoka Chambers, B-5, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi and therefore, Delhi Courts have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

7. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the present suit is governed by the principles laid down in Section 20 CPC.

8. Section 20 CPC reads:-

“20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

[* * *]

[Explanation].-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in 3[India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.”

9. On plain reading of Section 20 CPC, it is clear that clauses (a) and (b) inter alia refer to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, defendant carries on business, wher