Varadachariar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit for accounts filed by a principal against his agent. Both the Courts have held that no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the Chicacole Munsifs Courts jurisdiction and the plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court, as the conditions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code are not satisfied in the present case.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that either as a matter of law or even as an inference of fact as to the intended place of performance of the contract, I should hold that the cause of action arose in whole or in part within the Chicacole Courts jurisdiction. I am unable to accede to this contention. As pointed out by the learned District Judge, the reasoning in Tika Ram v. Daulat Raw (1924) I.L.R. 46 All. 465, where a very similar question arose, is clearly in favour of the view taken by the Courts below.

3. Mr. Jagannadha Das, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has mainly relied on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Soniram Jeetmull v. R.D. Tata & Co. Ltd. (1927) 53 M.L.J. 25 : L.R. 54 IndAp 265 : I.L.R. 5