( 1. ) THE only point which arises in this- petition for revision filed by the defendant is whether any part of the cause of action arose at Kareli District Narsinghpur, and the court there had juris diction to entertain the suit.

( 2. ) THE plaintiffs reside in Kareli and defenr dant firm carries on business as commission agent at Bombay. It is not disputed that on 13-7-54, the plaintiff had sent 50 bags of Masur dal to be sold by the defendant as commission agent. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant firm has not properly accounted for the sales and is therefore liable to render accounts.

( 3. ) THE facts alleged in the plaint to bring. the suit within the jurisdiction of the kareli Court as stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint are these. One Raojibhai residing at Kareli gave himself out as a partner and also as a representative of the firm of defendants and canvassed business for them. In July, 1954, Raoji proposed to the plaintiffs to appoint his firm as adhatias (commission agents) assuring that the firm would work profitably to their satisfaction and would charge usual commission and expenses. ( 4. ) THE defendants denied that Raoji was either a partner or a

representative of the firm. The receipt of dal was admitted but it was pleaded that the whole cause of action accrued at Bombay and therefore the Court at Kareli had no jurisdiction.

( 5. ) THE court has found that the contract took place at Kareli with Raoji. Though raoji was not a partner of the firm, he was a representative of the firm. Thus the cause of action accrued at Kareli.

( 6. ) THE finding that Raoji was not a partner of the firm is not disputed. Shri Dabir contends that after this finding, the trial Court should not have considered the alternative defence as there are no pleadings on the point. This is incorrect as para 3 of the plaint as amended clearly shows that Raojis capacity as a representative of the firm was pleaded in the alternative. The court was, therefore, right in considering this point.

( 7. ) HOWEVER, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove acts on the part of the defendants to show that they had appointed Raoji as their agent. If the fact of raoji being a partner had been established this would follow by implication; but as this was not done, the fact cannot be presumed by any unilateral acts of Raoji.

( 8. ) THE plaintiff Gulzarilal as P. W. 1 states that no outsider was present at the time of the talk between him and Raoji. He says, "raoji came to my shop on 13-7-54 and said that the goods should be sent to his shop Shall Ganpat Basu and Sons at bombay. He had also advised similarly before. " He does not refer to any settlement of terms on which business was to be done. This talk would hardly amount to a contract and would be nothing more than canvassing business for defendants.

( 9. ) AT the stage of evidence, it is alleged that money was to be paid at Kareli and also that the Railway receipt of the wagon was delivered to Raoji. These facts were not alleged in the plaint. If they were vital facts forming cause of action, they should have been mentioned. They cannot be considered in deciding whether any part of the cause of action accrued at Kareli.

( 10. ) THE general rule is that a suit for accounts against a commission agent must be filed at the place where the commission agent works; Firm Ramditmal Sant Lal v. Firm Seth Jothram Kidar Nath, AIR 1940 Lah 171 (A ). Unless the contract clearly indicates the contrary, the accounting and the payment by the agent of this kind must necessarily be done at the place where all the business is transacted : tikaram v. Daulatram, ILR 46 All 465: (AIR 1924 All 530) (B ). In this case, the business was wholly done at Bombay and in the absence of an allegation in the plaint, it must also be assumed that the accounts were to be rendered and money was to be paid at Bombay. Therefore, unless the talk at Kareli forms part of the cause of action, there would be no jurisdiction to try the