A suit can be filed where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15-7-1983 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Nowgong whereby the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 in this appeal) suit for recovery of Rs. 34,962.86 p. was decreed.

2. The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 34,962.36 on the allegations, that in pursuance to tenders invited by the defendant Corporation in the year 1979-80-81, an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant the North Eastern Electricity Power Corporation hereinafter referred as the Corporation, the present appellant was executed whereby the plaintiffs had been awarded contract for handling and transpor-tation of materials at and from Lanka to Garampani project. As per terms of contract as directed by the defendant No. 2 or his authorised representative, the plaintiff had carried materials i.e. cement from Lanka Railway station or other places to Store Yards godowns or work sites of the defendant corporation. The plaintiff, however, was not paid the amount of three bills submitted to him for carriage of cement etc. Besides, the security money of Rs. 11,000/- had also been deducted from the plaintiffs dues. Hence, the suit.

3. The main defendant, the present appel-lant had contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount claimed because the plaintiff had not delivered 705 bags of cement against the three bills of four challans as stated in the written statement. The defendant had not received cement under the said challans and hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount.

4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Is the suit bad for want of jurisdiction of this Court ?

3. Has the plaintiff right to sue ?

4. Is the suit maintainable in law ?

5. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of neces-sary parties ?

6. Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled to a decree of the suit, and if so, to what extent ?

7. Whether the defendants Nos. 1-3 are entitled to any compensatory cost entitled ?

The suit proceeded ex parte against pro forma defendant, M/s. Gammon India Ltd.

5. The learned trial Court held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit; there was cause of action and the plaintiff had right to sue. The suit was maintainable. The plain-tiff was entitled to the claim. The suit was accordingly decreed.

6. Aggrieved, the corporation has come in appeal and Shri S. N. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on its behalf has submitted that the corporation had its Principal seat of business at Shillong in Meghalaya, that the agreement had been executed at Shilling and consequently the Court at Nowgong had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, that the defendant appellant was not allowed to pro-duce expert evidence and thereby the learned trial Court committed grave error in the conduct of the trial; and that it was not established that the claim was justified that is that it had not been proved that 705 bags of cement had been delivered and consequently the defendant appellant was justified in with-holding payment for three bills in that regard. Shri B. A. Goswami, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, on the other hand has refuted the submissions and has submitted that there was no ground for interference with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. I have also heard Shri N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the pro forma respondent.

8. The three points which require determ-ination that whether the Court at Nowgong had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, that whether the learned trial Court had commit-ted any illegality in the trial, and lastly, whether the plaintiff had proved that 705 bags of cement had been delivered and the defen-dant appellant was not justified in withhold-ing payment of three bills of the plaintiff in that regard.

9. In so far as the first question is con-cerned, while i