Suit filed before Sub-Court, Nagapattinam which has no direction to entertain the suit.

Plaintiff is the appellant.

.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: The plaintiff Federation was found under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act with the object of procuring rice and paddy from Thanjavur District. The plaintiff has number of branches throughout Thanjavur District. It used to procure paddy directly or through its branches and send the same to the Government. The paddy or rice procured will be bagged, weighted and loaded in the Railway Wagons. Special Deputy Tahsildars appointed by the defendant used to take samples of the consignment in the Railway Station. They also used to weigh the consignment and issue a certificate. The consignment will be loaded at railway wagons in the presence of Government Officials and the wagons would be sealed. Railway Receipt will be taken in the name of the person to whom the consignments were despatched and handed over to the Special Deputy Tahsildar. After the inspection of the consignment, rate will be fixed and bills would be issued. If there is any shortage at the place of destination, the plaintiff is not responsible for the same. The responsibility of the plaintiff ceases when once the consignment is delivered to the Special Tahsildar. The plaintiff was required to pay the value of the short delivered goods. But the plaintiff is not aware of the same. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, has made a demand of payment under three bills and the amount was also recovered, from the plaintiff. The defendant cannot do so. The plaintiff has issued a notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and filed the suit for injunction not to demand the value of the shortage of goods.

3. The defendant in their written statement contend as follows: The plaintiff has been appointed as aprocur-ing Agent and licence was issued. The plaintiff has to act as per the conditions of the licence. The plaintiff is responsible till the goods are delivered in the destination as per G.O.No.84, Food, dated 21. 1969. The plaintiff will be responsible for the shortage. The amount demanded under Bills ‘A’ and ‘B’ was not the amount of shortage in one consignment. The Sub Court, Nagapattinam has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The question of limitation has also to be seen for each and every consignment. The defendant is entitled to deduct the value of the shortage of goods. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

.4. On the above pleadings, the learned Sub Judge, has framed as may as 15 issues. He has also given findings on all the issues including issue No.9, which is to the effect whether the Sub Court, Nagapattinam has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On issue Nos. 1 to 8, the findings are in favour of the plaintiff. On issue No.10, regarding the question of limitation also, the finding is in favour of the plaintiff, Except issue No.9 in which it is held that the Sub Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, all issues except issue Nos.12 and 15 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and the finding of the trial Court on these issues 12 and 15 are left unanswered in view of the finding on issue No.9. The plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation in proper court in view of the findings on issue No.9.

5. It is against this order, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued that as per Sec.20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part arises, and therefore, in the present case, where part of the cause of action viz., delivery of the consignment to the delivery wagon had taken place, being Tiruvarur, the Sub Court at Nagapattinam has jurisdiction and the finding of the trial Court otherwise is not valid.

7. Now, let us see what is meant by cause of action. Cause of action means, every fact which is material for the plaintiff to prove in order to obtain a judgm