JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. appellant impugns order dated 30.10.2019 whereby the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. The plaint has been returned on the ground of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction by the trial court. It has been held that the averments in the plaint that discussion and negotiation had taken place in the Delhi office were bald and vague averments without the same being substantiated by any material. In these circumstances, the plaint has been returned.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in not appreciating that apart from the discussion that had taken place in the office at Delhi the arrangement between the parties was that work was undertaken by the appellant at Delhi which clearly showed that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and the Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction.

5. He submits that the business transactions between the parties were that the respondent used to send raw material or semi-finished articles to Delhi on which the appellant was supposed