GUPTA, J. :- This revision, under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is before us in consequences of an order of reference by brother Asthana by reason of the fact that brother Asthana was of the opinion that there was controversy on the question whether the English common law principle that the debtor must seek the creditor was applicable to India. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length we are of opinion that it is not necessary for us to record any opinion on the question whether the said principle, as a pure principle of law, is or is not applicable in India, because, for the purposes of this revision it does not appear necessary to do so. In our opinion this revision must fail for the reasons which follow.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy the necessary facts may now be set forward. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Kalpi in the district of Jalaun, whereas the principal defendant is a firm carrying on business at Allahabad. There is no controversy that transactions by way of sale of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant had taken place and moneys were due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Accounts were gone into between the parties at Allahabad and a deed acknowledging liability to pay some amount, which as a result of accounting was found due to the plaintiff from the defendant, was also executed at Allahabad. The said deed was silent in regard to the place where the amount mentioned therein was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

This settlement of accounts took place some time in 1964. In 1967 the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Orai, claiming the amount found to have been due as a result of the settlement arrived at in 1964 after giving credit to certain amounts, which, according to the plaintiff, had meanwhile been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, together with some amount, as damages and interest. The suit was contested and one of the pleas raised on defendant's behalf was that the Court of Kalpi had no jurisdiction. The first issue framed by the learned Civil Judge ran as follows :

"Has the court jurisdiction to try the suit?"

Evidence bearing on the above issue was recorded by the court and after hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned Civil Judge recorded his finding on the issue relating to jurisdiction, the finding being that the Court at Orai had jurisdiction to try the suit. There is no controversy that the document incorporating the settlement of account which had been drawn up in 1964 contained no indication as to where payment of the amount stated therein as having been found due was to be made. On a consideration of the material before him the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that on the material before him he was unable to record a finding either that the money was agreed upon to be paid at Allahabad or that it was agreed upon to be paid at Kalpi.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid finding, the learned Civil Judge had to answer the issue as to whether the Court at Orai had jurisdiction to try the suit. The order recorded by the learned Civil Judge shows that reliance was placed by him on the English common law principle that the debtor must seek his creditor and reference was made by him to the decision recorded by the Calcutta High Court in the case of S. P. Consolidated Engineering Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1966 Cal 259 in support of the view that the aforesaid principle was of universal application. Thus, relying on the said rule, the learned Civil Judge recorded the finding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. At the hearing of the revision before brother Asthana, reference on plaintiff's behalf appears to have been made to two cases, viz., Soniram Jeetmal v. R. D. Tata, AIR 1927 PC 156 and Sunderlal v. Jainarain, AIR 1955 All 669, whereas reference on behalf of the defendant was made to the decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Heeralal Girdharilal v. Baijnath