The cause of action is a bundle of facts required to be pleaded and proved for obtaining relief, and the court may reject a plaint only if it does not disclose a cause of action.

1. This revision filed, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), is directed against the order dated 22.06.2005, passed by the learned VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.1755 of 2004, dismissing the plea of the petitioner to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.

2. The first defendant in O.S.No.1755 of 2004, is the revision petitioner and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff. The second respondent bank is the second defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from invoking the amount secured under the bank guarantee, dated 14.10.2005, from the second defendant bank, except by due process of law. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that a tender floated by the petitioner for a turn key Housing Project at Chennai, and the tender conditions were stipulated, by letter dated 02.09.2003. The respondent/plaintiff participated in the tender and submitted their bid on 14.10.2003 and executed a proforma for bid security in the form of bank guarantee for Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and such bank guarantee was arranged through the second respondent bank, by document dated 14.10.2003, executed at Chennai.

3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the bank guarantee can be invoked by them only on certain conditions and that they have not violated any of such condition and during the period of validity of the bid, the respondent/plaintiff withdrew their offer and therefore, the question of invoking the bank guarantee does not arise. It has been further stated that the petitioner knowing fully well that the bid period had expired on 14.01.2004, threatened to invoke the bank guarantee, which was due to expire on 15.04.2004 and therefore, approached the Court by filing the suit. It is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court on 02.09.2003, when the letter was sent by the petitioner to the respondent/plaintiff, satisfying the bid validity period, when the petitioner floated the tender for their turn key Housing Project at Chennai on 14.10.2003; when the bid was submitted and the bank guarantee was issued in favour of the petitioner by the second respondent bank from Chennai and when the petitioner is threatened that they will claim the bank guarantee from the second respondent at Chennai and therefore, the cause of action has arisen at Chennai.

4. The petitioner/first defendant filed their written statement, stating that the suit is not maintainable either on law or on facts and the City Civil Court at Chennai, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as per condition No.37.1.3 of the General Conditions of the contract, only the Court within the jurisdiction of which the head office of the petitioner organization is located will have jurisdiction on any matter regarding reference to Court and therefore, the City Civil Court at Chennai, has no jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the petitioner organization is at New Delhi and all proceedings of the tender were done in New Delhi and the petitioner does not have any office in Chennai and suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court at Chennai. That apart in the written statement, the petitioner/first defendant have also dealt with the merits of the matter and have elaborately stated about the terms and conditions of the tender. Further, it was stated that there was a violation of conditions of contract and the petitioner/first defendant organisation are entitled to invoke the bank guarantee given by the first respondent through the second respondent bank.

5. With the above averments, the parties went for trial and issues were settled and proof affidavit was filed by the plaintiff and the Court has also drawn an issue as to whether the suit is maintainable and whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction ov