The assignment of a promissory note is a part of the cause of action, and the assignee can sue in the court where the assignment took place. Objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and before the settlement of issues.

The defendant in O.S.No.9581 of 2006 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai (incharge of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 07.01.2008 by which the petition filed by him in I.A.No.17767 of 2007 under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Sec.20 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. to try the issue of territorial jurisdiction as the preliminary issue was dismissed by the trial court.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed O.S.No.9581 of 2006 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying to pass a judgment and decree directing the revision petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.54,400/- (which includes interest of Rs.14,400/-) and also directing the revision petitioner/ defendant to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- from the date of the filing of the plaint till the date of realisation of the said amount.

3. According to the plaintiff/respondent herein, the revision petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from one Thiru S. Pugalendi of Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District for urgent family requirements and the revision petitioner/defendant executed a Promissory note dated 210. 2003 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The said S. Pugalenthi made over the above Promissory Note to the respondent/plaintiff on 30.05.2004 at Chennai. The said S. Pugalenthi also intimated about the made over in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to the revision petitioner/defendant on 30.05.2004. When the plaintiff demanded the principal amount as well as the interest on the above said Promissory Note, the revision petitioner/ defendant neither paid the principal amount nor the interest. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff issued an Advocate notice on 22.06.2004 calling upon the revision petitioner/defendant to make payment towards the said Promissory Note.

4. The respondent/defendant issued a reply notice on 5.07.2004, denying the execution of the said promissory note dated 210. 2003, which is contrary to the revision petitioners earlier reply notice dated 25.02.2004, wherein he admitted the execution of the promissory note. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.9581 of 2006 for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The revision petitioner/defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed a written statement wherein he denied that he borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the respondent/ plaintiff on 210. 2006. According to the revision petitioner/defendant, he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Thiru S. Pugalenthi of Salem in the year 1999 and the said S. Pugalenthi is a money lender. The above said money lender forced the revision petitioner/defendant to sign some blank stamp papers and unfilled Promissory Notes at the time when the revision petitioner/defendant borrowed the sum of Rs.10,000/-. He repaid the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest to the money lender Thiru S. Pugalenthi in the year 2003. Thereafter, the said S. Pugalenthi instead of returning the blank promissory notes and the blank stamp papers, demanded another sum of Rs.10,000/- from the revision petitioner/defendant.

6. The revision petitioner/defendant also raised the question of territorial jurisdiction in the written statement by stating that the Promissory Note was alleged to have been executed at Salem and the entire cause of action arose only in Salem District. Further, the revision petitioner/defendant is also residing at Athur Taluk, Salem District and hence, the revision petitioner/defendant contended that the City Civil Court in Chennai lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit.

7. Pending suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.17767 of 2007 under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Sec.20 and 151 of C.P.C. to pass an order to try the issue of jurisdiction and to try the above suit by the trial court, as a preliminary issue and d