The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of jurisdiction based on the location of the cause of action and the delivery and execution of the promissory note.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of learned VII-Assistant City Civil Judge at Madras passed in O.S. No. 1046 of 1985, dated 31-8-1987. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The plaint averments are summarised as follows.

The defendant had business dealings with the plaintiff and in respect of the amount due under the goods sold and delivered, the defendant executed as on demand promissory note for Rs. 33,751.75, dated 12-12-1980 in favour of the plaintiff and forwarded the same to the plaintiff at Madras by their covering letter, dated 15-12-1980, promis-sing to repay the said sum of Rs. 33,751.75 at Madras, on demand, together with interest thereon at 18% per annum. The defendant did not make any payment either towards principal or towards interest and the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant, dated 3-3-1982 through their Advocate demanding immediate payment of the dues. After the receipt of the said notice, the defendant made a part payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 13-8-1983 by way of cheque and it was encashed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount due on the promissory note at the rate of 18% per annum from 12-12-1980, the date of the promissory note. There is thus due and payable by the defendant the sum of Rs. 33,751.75 as principal and the sum of Rs. 22,276/- as interest together totalling to Rs. 56027.75. After giving credit to the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, there is a sum of Rs. 51,027.75 due and outstanding from the defendant which they have failed and neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands and reminders and by Advocate's notice, dated 11-5-1984. The suit is filed under Order 37, Rule 1 of C. P. C. The cause of action for the suit arose on 12-12-1980 on which date the promissory note was executed, on 13-8-1983 on which date the defendant made a part payment and subsequently and it arose at Madras at which place the promissory note was delivered to the plaintiff's registered office and at which place the defendant promised to pay the amount due together with interest. The suit is not barred by limitation since the defendant made a part payment on 13-8-1983. The plaintiff prays for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 51,027.75 together with future interest on the principal amount at 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation.

3. The defendant in the written statement contended as follows.

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for no part of cause of action has or had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and each and every cause of action or part thereof had arisen only in Goa. It is true that the defendant had dealings with the plaintiff and had executed the promissory note. But, the allegation that the promissory note was forwarded to the plaintiff at Madras promising to pay at Madras is denied. No such promise to pay at Madras was made. The suit promissory note was executed at Goa and the defendant is residing at Margao, Goa and all the transactions for which the suit promissory note was executed were also entered into and concluded at Goa and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The amount claimed in the suit is also not correct. As on the date of written statement, the entire principal has been paid and no amount is due towards principal. That apart, the defendant has paid another sum of Rs. 5,000/- over and above Rs. 5,000/- mentioned in the plaint which the plaintiff had not given credit to. The plaintiff is bound to give credit to that sum. The defendant is not liable to pay any interest since entire amount has been paid. The rate of interest claimed in the plaint is excessive. The defendant is not liable for the suit claim.

4. The trial Court framed five issues and on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the Court in Goa alone has jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court at Madras has no jurisdiction, the defendant had paid the enti