( 1 ) THIS revision application raises a question of jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge (junior division) at Bhavnagar to grant reliefs asked for in Civil Suit No. 423 of 1962 filed by the present opponent against the applicant. The parties had entered into correspondence whereby the opponent had placed an order for 24 Semi Chilled Cast Iron Rolls which the present applicant had agreed to supply on certain terms. The opponent had paid Rs. 4 0 as advance to the applicant. After some inordinate delay goods were supplied but they were found not in accordance with the sample or as per the terms of the contract and the opponent refused to take delivery of the goods and the goods were then carried by the applicant to Bombay. It may be mentioned that the opponent firm is at Bhavnagar while the applicants are of Bombay. The opponent ultimately filed the above said suit against the applicant for the return of Rs. 4 0 which were given as advance and also claimed Rs. 3 0 as damages for breach of the contract. On behalf of the applicant the suit was contested on various grounds one of them being that the Bhavnagar Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. Issue No. 6 was accordingly framed which was as follows:-IS it proved that cause of action or any part of it had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court can hear the suits. It was urged before the learned Judge that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court as the contract was completed by the applicants and acceptance of the contract was made at Bombay and therefore only the Court at Bombay had jurisdiction. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the various authorities which were cited the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it would be correct to say that for the sum of Rs. 3 0 which was claimed as damages if there were no other qualifying circumstances the cause of action would not arise within the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court but there was also the claim for Rs. 4 0 which were advanced to the applicants by the opponent and he came to the conclusion that on the principle of debtor required to find his creditor and make payment at the place where he resides the cause of action for the return of that amount did arise within his jurisdiction and accordingly a part of the cause of action for the suit for the recovery of Rs. 7 0 did arise within the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court and he therefore held the issue in the affirmative and ordered that the suit should be further heard on merits. Being aggrieved by the said order this revision application has been filed challenging the said order.

( 2 ) THE first contention raised by Mr. Oza the learned advocate for the applicants is that the Lower Court erred in assuming jurisdiction on the ground that the technical common law rule of the obligation of the debtor to find his creditor and pay the debt where the creditor resides apply in India. According to Mr. Oza that technical common law rule cannot be imported into the law in India and in any case even if it has any use it can only be one of the factors to determine the question of implied intention of the parties as to where the contract will be performed. In support of this contention Mr. Oza particularly relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Firm Hiralal v. Bai Nath A. I. R. 1960 Punjab 450 There the question arose as regards the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in a case of contract. Their Lordships observed that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined on the ground that the price of goods was payable within its jurisdiction the Court should find as a fact whether the money was agreed expressly or impliedly to be paid within its territorial jurisdiction. To find this fact the Court is entitled to take into consideration the contract its attending circumstances the creditors ordinary pla