(2). For appreciating whether the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court a few facts may be looked into.

(3). The dispute in the case relates to payment of pension to the petitioner who was employed in the army and was initially enrolled in the Company Xth Bn. Shekhawati Vith Rajput Rifles, in 1942. While in army service, his eye was injured and he was transferred to Army Ordinance Corps. Ultimately, he was retired in the year 1957 from Sikanderabad. He was not paid any pension. Therefore, he made representations which were dismissed.

(4). The certificate of service issued to the petitioner is Annexure-2 attached to the writ petition. Besides mentioning his village to be in Distt. Jaipur, this certificate further says that if the holder of this certificate wishes to submit petition, he must do so to the Officer-Incharge Records, AOC, Sikanderabad or to the Collector, Jaipur.

(5). Respondents in the case are the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad and the Officer Incharge, Army Ordinance Corps, Sikanderabad. None of these reside within the jurisdiction of this court but the letter refusing pension to the petitioner was delivered to him within the jurisdiction of this court.

(6). Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prem Cables P. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Collector Customs Bombay and another (1). In this case orders of the Principal Appraiser of Customs, Bombay; the Appellate Collector of Customs; the Commissioner (Revision Applications) Government of India were communicated to the petitioner at his village in Rajasthan where the registered office of the petitioner - company was located. In these circumstances, it was held that part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan hence, the writ petition was entertained. In arriving at this decision, reliance was placed on number of other decisions wherein it is stated that ``cause of action has always been understood as referable to the bundle of facts in a legal proceedings and if a limb of that bundle of facts is available, seen or discernible in one particular place, which is the seat of High Court, then such High Court has the power to exercise all the powers conferred on it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the fact that the authority against whom the ultimate rule has to be issued and whose act has created a cause of action as a whole or in part, is situated outside its territorial limits.

(7). Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Others (2) wherein the accrual of cause of action was considered and it was observed that the expression ``cause of action means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove in order to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the court. In arriving at the conclusion that the High Court at Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction, the facts relevant were that only the News Paper in which the advertisement inviting tenders was circulated, was read by the party within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Tenders were to be submitted and scrutinised at Delhi and the work was to be executed in Guja- rat. In these circumstances, it was held that no part of cause of action arose at Calcutta.

(8). Another case relied upon by the counsel is the case of State of Rajasthan & Others vs. M/s. Swaika Properties & Another (3). This was a case wherein the land to be acquired was situated at Jaipur and the acqui- sition proceedings were initiated in Rajasthan. N