( 1. ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal and is directed against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, who held that the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant was not triable at Bilaspur. The plaint was consequently returned by him for presentation to the proper Court.

( 2. ) THE only question in this appeal is whether the Additional District judge, Bilaspur had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant.

( 3. ) THE plaintiff was appointed by the first defendant company, Messrs. Poisons Limited, as a Laboratory Assistant at Anand (Gujrat) in September 1945 on a salary of Rs. 100 per month. According to the plaintiff, the contract of service was completed when he posted a letter accepting the appointment on 14th September 1945, at Bilaspur. I shall revert to this controversy later. The plaintiff, admittedly, joined as a Laboratory Assistant in October 1945 at Anand (Gujrat ). Thereafter, on 3rd July 1950 he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant Superintendent on a salary of Rs. 250 per month. In that capacity he was transferred to the companys branch at Patna from 1st January 1952 in the grade of Rs. 250-20-500. The plaintiff continued in service till 3rd September 1964 at Patna, on which date his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct. The plaintiff claims that the termination of his employment was wrongful and, therefore, he is entitled to the sums detailed in paragraph 33 of the plaint which are as under :

The plaintiff also claims interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 37,473 and thus the total amount claimed in the suit works out to Rs. 40,671. The plaintiff further claims rendition of accounts of provident fund.

( 4. ) THE defendants state that no part of the cause of action arose at bilaspur and, therefore, the Court at Bilaspur had no jurisdiction. The trial court, as already stated, accepted the defendants plea and the plaint was ordered to be returned.

( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued before me that the contract of service came into existence on 14th September 1945 when the plaintiff posted at Bilaspur the letter of acceptance, which is marked as exh. P-3 and, therefore, a part of the cause of action arose at Bilaspur. He has also argued that the provident fund was in any case a debt which was payable to the plaintiff at Bilaspur, which is his place of residence, on the principle that the debtor must follow the creditor. On these two grounds it is argued by the learned counsel that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous.

( 6. ) I will first take up the argument about the making of the contract.

( 7. ) THE argument of the learned counsel that the contract was made at bilaspur by dropping a letter of acceptance, has to be examined first on facts, because, the defendants deny and do not accept the existence of any letter like exh. P-3 or Exh. P-4, produced by the plaintiff. The correspondence between the parties started on 24th August 1945 when the defendant-company sent a letter exh. P-1. In that letter, the company wrote that they were prepared to offer the plaintiff the post of Laboratory Assistant on a salary of Rs. 75 per month plus dearness allowance. They also mentioned that unfurnished accommodation will be provided. The last portion of this letter reads :

"please let us know if you are prepared to accept the post if offered to you, and if you are agreeable, please make an application in your own handwriting and send us copies of the testimonials etc. also please give us at least one good reference. "

In reply to this letter, it appears that the plaintiff wrote that he wanted a starting salary of Rs. 100 per month. He also wanted a scale of pay and some assurance for future prospects. The reply of the plaintiff is not on record, but its sense can be gathered from the companys second letter Exh. P-2 bearing the date 12th September 1945. In this letter, the company wrote that they w