JUDGMENT :

The appellant in this R.S.A. is the defendant in O.S.No.262/2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and the appellant in A.S.No.8/2014 on the file of the Additional District Court-I, Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court'). The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendant according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.

2. The suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs.2,44,600/-from the defendant in connection with a business dealing with raw cashew nuts. The defendant delivered a written statement contending that no dealing had taken place within the jurisdiction of the trial court and the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant further contended that the quality of nuts received from the plaintiff was substandard. The trial court, on an evaluation of the entire evidence and document held that the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the C.P.C. and further held that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,44,600/-to the plaintiff. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed A.S.No.8/2014 before the Additional District Court-I, Thalassery. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to the learned counsel, the place of making the contract, the place of its breach or non-performance and the place where money was payable under the contract were all outside the jurisdiction of the court and no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. Merely the fact that the correspondence which led to the contract was from a place within the jurisdiction of the court as stated by the plaintiff will not give jurisdiction to the trial court. It was contended that the order was placed by the plaintiff telephonically from his place and the same was accepted by the defendant from Mangalore at his place and the amount was paid by the defendant from Mangalore.

5. The money sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is the money allegedly due from the defendant to the plaintiff towards the value of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that he is a hill produce dealer conducting business at Koomanthode and he had sent a consignment of 10,000Kg. of raw cashew nuts to the defendant who was running a cashew factory at Mangalore as per the orders of the defendant for a consideration of Rs.7,30,000/-. It is alleged that the said consignment was sent by the plaintiff on 22.3.2012 and it was delivered over to the defendant on the same day. The defendant has contended that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the entire transaction pertaining to the liability had taken place within the jurisdiction of the courts at Mangalore where the defendant permanently resides and carries over his business. The trial court held that actual offer which led to the conclusion of the contract pursuant to the acceptance of the same by the plaintiff came from the defendant who has been running a factory at Mangalore by offering to accept the supply of cashew nuts of the quality as insisted by the plaintiff for a particular price. Resultantly, the plaintiff sent the consignment for the price as agreed by the defendant. Therefore, the trial court was of the view that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant was concluded within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court further held that the place of acceptance of the offer made by the defendant, the place of conclusion of the contract over telephone and the place where the plaintiff has been conducting his hill produce dealership are the same and within the jurisdicti