MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the defendant No.3’s application under Order VII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting in the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction, as this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

2. The facts are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, that purported transfer evidence by deed of assignment dated 01.10.2009 executed between defendants No.1 and 3 is null and void, and mandatory injunction, thereby restraining the defendants 2 and 3 or any one from taking any action or doing or executing any acts or deeds including, but not limited to, dealing with the immovable properties or moveable assets of the plaintiff or from, in any manner whatsoever, interfering with the management of the plaintiff company by its present promoters or otherwise asserting any rights attaching to the said debentures in any manner, particularly by virtue of the transfer as evidenced by the deed of assignment dated 01.10.2009. The defendant No.3 is the Managing Director of the defendant No.2 who has taken over the debts of plaintiff from defendant No.1 by way of an instrument of Assignment of Debt between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 executed through defendant No.3.

3. The main contention of defendant No.3 is that a bare reading of the plaint, along with the documents, demonstrates that this Court has no jurisdiction. Thus, under the provision of Order VII, Rule 10 CPC, the plaint is liable to be returned to be presented in the proper Court.

4. It is stated in the application that the suit is to be filed either in the place where the defendant resides or carries on business or the place where the cause of action arises. Since the registered office of defendant No.3 is at Mumbai and it carries on business from Mumbai only, therefore, the present suit has to be filed at Mumbai. It is further stated that even the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai.

5. The following are the main reasons given by defendant No.3 that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit under Section 20 CPC:

(a) The plaintiff has registered office at Mumbai and carries on its business from Mumbai and there is no subordinate office of the plaintiff in Delhi. The defendant No.1 has its registered office at New Delhi, but has its regional/ subordinate office at Mumbai through which all the financial documents as well as the subscription agreement dated 21.09.2011 were executed with the plaintiff.

(b) As per clause 1.13 of Article 1 of the subscription agreement dated 21.09.2001, all the monies payable by the company to the defendant No.1 was to be paid at Mumbai by cheque or bank draft on scheduled bank at Mumbai. The debentures, which form part of the suit, arose out of the above said restructurings and the plaintiff, by allotment letters, both dated 21.09.2001, had allotted Zero Coupon Non-Convertible Debentures (ZCNCD) aggregating to Rs.693.79 lac at the face value of Rs.100/- each at Mumbai.

(c) The case of the plaintiff for restructuring was referred to the CDR Cell of RBI which is also in Mumbai and subsequently in 2006, the Mumbai Regional Office of defendant No.1, by its communication dated 13.02.2006, informed the plaintiff about the approval of CDR restructuring package. The CDR Cell, Mumbai, by its letter dated 04.11.2008, informed the Mumbai Regional Office of defendant No.1 that CDREG had accepted the proposal of withdrawal of the plaintiff from CDR system.

(d) The Mumbai Regional Office of defendant No.1, by letter dated 29.09.2009, informed the plaintiff that as the plaintiff failed to perform its contractual obligations towards payment of dues to defendant No.1, therefore, the defendant No.1 had revoked all the reliefs and concessions.

(e) The Deed of Assignment dated 01.10.2009 was also executed in favour of defendant No.3 through the regional office of the defendant No.1 at Mumbai, whereb