The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code in determining the jurisdiction of the court based on the place where the cause of action arises in suits arising out of a contract.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 50 said to be the advance sent by him to the defendant firm with respect to certain goods ordered by him. The plaintiffs case is that he had given orders to the defendant firm not to send the goods per V.P.P. but that in as much as the defendant sent the goods per V.P.P. in contravention of his order, he refused to receive the goods and that he is now en-titled to the refund of the Rs. 50 advanced by him. The other contention raised by the plaintiff need not be referred to for purposes of this Revision Petition. The defendant denied having received any intimation from the plaintiff before they sent the goods that the goods were not to be sent by V.P.P. The defendant also contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the cause of action arose at Madras and not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, namely, the District Munsifs Court of Tiruvarur. With reference to those contentions two important points arose for determination in the lower Court : (1) Whether the plaintiff was right in refusing to take delivery of the goods, the receipt for which was sent to him by V.P.P. (2) Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the first point the learned District Munsif found in favour of the plaintiff. He Bays on a consideration of the contention:

I find that the V.P.P. has been rightly refused and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. (para. 9 of the judgment.)

2. But he was not given a decree as the learned District Munsif found on the second point that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This matter is dealt with very briefly by the learned District Munsif in para. 10 of his judgment. In that paragraph he says that it appears from Ex. 2 that the plaintiff sent the Rs. 50 by means of a Hundi. The learned Counsel for the petitioner says that this is a mistake and that the records of the case do not show that it was by a Hundi that the sum was sent. From the papers filed in the case by the petitioner in the lower Court it would appear that the money was sent insured and Ex. 2 which refers to the despatch of money, says : "We have sent enclosed herewith Rs. 50 only." This corroborates the statement of the counsel that the learned District Munsif is not correct when he says that the money was sent by means of a hundi. After stating that the money was sent by a hundi the learned District Munsif says:

We must take it that the money was paid at Madras and the contract was completed on payment of the said advance....

3. His opinion on this point apparently is that the contract was entered into at Madras. It is argued that this conclusion of the learned District Munsif is wrong because the offer to send the goods is accepted by Ex. 2 at Vijayapuram within the jurisdiction of the Tiruvarur Court. In Kamisetti Subbiah v. Katha Venkatawamy (1904) 27 Mad. 355 it is stated:

Under the Contract Act, where the proposal and acceptance are made by letters, the contract Is made at the time when and at the place where the letter of acceptance is posted.

4. Exhibit 2 was posted at Vijayapuram. It would follow from this that the contract was made in Vijayapuram. Another -circumstance having a bearing on the question of jurisdiction is also referred to by the learned District Munsif in this paragraph. He first states, that the goods had to be "consigned to this place" thereby meaning Tiruvarur. Then he says:

In as much as the defendant never consented to give credit to the plaintiff, and as a matter of fact had sent the goods receipt only by V.P.P. it must be taken that the performance of the contract was intended by the parties to take place only in Madras.

5. This conclusion of the learned District Munsif is obviously wrong. There is an exact decision bearing on the point in Ram Lal v. Bhola Nath 1920 All. 6. In that case, the plain-tiffs at a p