1. This is a civil revision petition by the defendant. The trial court on the averments in the plaint considered the question of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It held that it has no jurisdiction to try the case. This was done on the basis that no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court.

2. The aggrieved plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional Sub Judge, Cochin. The Additional Sub judge took a different view. He also examined the averments in the plaint. Valued the submissions made by the defendant and the plaintiff and found that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. He held that the Munsiff court is bound to try the suit. The defendant is aggrieved. He files this revision.

3. The suit is for a permanent injunction to rest rain the defendant and its officers including its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director from taking any proceedings or holding any enquiry against the plaintiff pursuant to a memorandum No. VO/6078 dated 4-6-1980. The main contention, raised by the plaintiff is that the disciplinary authority as far as the plaintiff is concerned, is the Pr