( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Manish goyal for the petitioner and Sri Madhur prakash representing respondents No. 2 and 3 at length.

( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing Sri Madhur prakash raised a preliminary objection regarding want of territorial jurisdiction on part of this Court to entertain and hear this writ petition. The objection of Sri Madhur Prakash can be divided into three parts : (1) No part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of U. P. (2) No facts have been pleaded in the writ petition on the basis of which it can be said that any part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of U. P. (3) The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands ousted in favour of the Jharkhand High Court under Clause 10. 5 of the Tender Agreement, the relevant part of which reads that (any) dispute arising out of this scheme shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High court.

( 3 ) ON this objection, both the sides were granted time to examine the matter. From the petitioners side, a (second) supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that district chandauli (in U. P.) is the principal place of business of the petitioner. This averment in para 2 pf the second supplementary affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Srivastava is sought to be corroborated by the copy of the registered partnership deed of the petitioner which has been enclosed as 1st Annexure to that affidavit. The said deed is dated 7-7-2000, and in it the principal place of business is at Chandauli and the only other place where the petitioner carries on business is Varanasi, which is also in the State of U. P.

( 4 ) SRI Madhur Prakash raised an objection that this second supplementary affidavit, from the side of the petitioner, should not be entertained or accepted by this Court because all the facts mentioned in this affidavit were within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when the writ petition was filed and there is no explanation from the petitioners side why these facts were not mentioned in the writ petition as originally filed.

( 5 ) HAVING considered the matter, we are unable to sustain this objection. This kind of objection is available either in cases of review under Order 47 Rule 1 (a) or in cases of additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure or in suits for specific performance of contracts where the pleadings of readiness and willingness required under Section 16 (l) (c) of the Specific relief Act has not been made originally in the plaint and is sought to be added by amendment of the plaint. Apart from the above three cases, we are not aware of any other principle of law which permits exception to be taken to narration of additional facts by way of amendment application or by way of supplementary affidavit in a writ petition.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner with regard to territorial jurisdiction is that because the communication of the acceptance of the tender was received by the petitioner by e-mail at chandauli (U. P.), therefore, the contract from which this dispute arises was completed at chandauli and in a case seeking performance of the contractor allegingbreach of the contract by the respondents, the completion of the contract is a part of the cause of action. There the place where the contract was completed by receipt of communication of acceptance is a place where part of cause of action arises.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Halsburys Laws of England 4th Edition Reissue Vol. 9 (1) Paragraph 683 page-434, 435 it has been said in reference to contracts made orally as by telephone, or in writing as by telex or fax, that the contract is complete when and where the acceptance is received. However, those principles can apply only where the transmitting terminal and the receiving terminal are at fixed points. In case of e-mail, the data (in this case acceptance) can be transmitted from any where by the e-mail account holder, it goes to the memo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document