The jurisdiction of a court to hear a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property is determined by the place where the wrong was done, unless the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of another court.

The only point in this case is whether the Ujjain Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit out of which this revision has arisen. The defendant non-applicant (West End Watch Company) carries on business at Bombay. The plaintiff applicant sent his wrist-watch there for repairs and a letter to the defendant, the material portion of which is in the following words :

"I had purchased a matchless wrist watch from an Indore dealer, while I was at Mhow. I have sent the above watch to you by registered parcel post separately for repairs, which will reach you. On receiving the same kindly send an estimate of repairs and oh approval I will write to you to carry on the work for its repairs."

2. The defendant's correspondence shows that they had opened the parcel but found nothing in it. After correspondence with the Presidency Post Master the defendant informed the plaintiff who was of the opinion that the Company is responsible for the loss sustained by him. He, therefore, brought this suit for recovery of Rs.57/- as the price of the wrist watch and Rs.58/- as damages (i.e. for the recovery of 115/- rupees in all). In para 7 of the plaint he mentioned that the plaintiff resides at Ujjain, that he sent the wrist watch from Ujjain and that the defendant ought to have returned it to him at Ujjain, therefore, the Ujjain Court had jurisdiction.

3. The learned Small Causes Court, Ujjain, held that Ujjain Court had no jurisdiction. Aggrieved with this order, the plaintiff has filed this revision.

4. The judgment of the Small Causes Court, I regret to observe, is rather unsatisfactory. He has not referred to any provision of the Civil Procedure Code, which in his opinion governed the case or to the question whether there was any agreement between the parties. The unsystematic approach to the whole question by the Court below has given rise to different kinds of argument at the Bar which will have to be referred to briefly. It is well settled law now, that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined with reference to the allegations in the plaint and not with reference to pleas. The basis of the suit, according to the plaint, does not appear to have been any agreement between the parties that the watch will be returned to Ujjain after repairs. The letter of the plaintiff referred to above was, firstly, jiot an offer. There was neither offer nor acceptance and there was no contract between the parties for repairs of the watch or for the return of watch to Ujjain. Secondly, even if the plaintiff's letter referred to above be regarded as an offer, (which it was not) then an offer must be deemed to have been made at the place where it was received and not at the place from which it was sent. - 'Ahmad Bux v. Fazal Karim', ILR (1940) Mad 195; - 'Ratanlal v. Harcharanlal', ILR (1947) All 44; - 'Manilal v. Venkatachalapathi Iyer', AIR 1943 Mad 471; - 'Arthur Butlar Co.Ltd. v. Dist. Board of Gaya', 25 Pat 292 and - 'Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Libitity Co.v. Narsingh Prasad', 27 Pat 723. Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act is clear on this point.

5. Mr. Vyas contends that the letter was sent from Ujjain and the cause of action in part arose at Ujjain within the meaning of Section 20(C) C.P. Code. In my opinion the mere fact that the plaintiff posted a letter at Ujjain and sent the parcel from Ujjain would be no part of cause of action because there could be no proposal till it came to the knowledge of the person to whom the proposal was made. If a person travelling in a car or a train gets down at one place to post a letter and despatches the parcel from a Post Office in the way; can it be said that the place where the letter and parcel were posted had anything to do with any part of the cause of action? The Post Office is only the agent of the sender of the letter and the parcel and not the agent of the addressee. The offer thus, takes place where it is communicated to the other party.

6. Thirdly, even if, it be assumed that the watch was receiv