JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the price of certain indigo seeds, sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The seeds were grown by the Plaintiff in the District of Tirhoot, where he resides. The Defendant who is the Appellant before us resides in the District of Nadia. It appears that the Plaintiff, being desirous of selling 300 maunds of fresh indigo seeds, issued an advertisement to the following effect:-- "For sale : 300 maunds fresh indigo seeds at Rs. 3-8 per maund delivered at Kishenpore station, T.S. Railway," that is, Tirhoot State Railway, Kishenpore being in Tirhoot. The Defendant thereupon, on the 14th April, sent the following telegram to the Plaintiff: "Will give three rupees for 300 maunds seed; if offer accepted despatch to Chooadanga at once." To this, the following reply was sent:-- "Your wire and letter to hand. 120 bags (300 maunds) of indigo seeds went forward to Kishenpore station early this morning and I have instructed station-master to despatch it at once. You will find seed of first rate quality; it is from some lot as I have sown the whole of my cultivation this season and I have a splendid crop. I wired you immediately on receipt of your massage, R.R. is herewith enclosed. Your cheque for Rs. 900 on receipt of seed will oblige. Yours truly H. Manners. To 300 maunds indigo seeds at Rs. 3 per maund, Rs. 900." On the same day, as the telegram was sent by the Defendant, he wrote a letter to the Plaintiff as follows:-- "I have to-day sent "you a wire offering Rs. 3 per maund for the 300 maunds of indigo seed which you have for sale. If you accept my offer, will you please have the seed despatched at once per rail to Chooadanga station E. B. S. Railway and send me the railway receipt by post." As indicated in the letter of Mr. Manners of the 17th April 1899, the goods were delivered at the Kishenpore station for transit to Chooadanga in the District of Nadia, and they were duly received. Apparently, some question or other arose between the parties as regards the quality of the seeds thus supplied, the Defendant contending that the seeds supplied were not fresh seeds as agreed to be delivered. Apparently, some question or other arose between the parties as regards the quality of the seeds thus supplied, the Defendant contending that the seeds supplied were not fresh seeds as agreed to be delivered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff instituted this suit in the Munsif's Court at Samastipur in the District of Tirhoot, for recovery of the price of the goods supplied. One of the questions that was raised in the Court below and which has been repeated before us in second appeal by the learned vakil for the Appellant is whether the Samastipur Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and whether the suit should not have been instituted in the Nadia Court. Both the Courts below have decided this question for the Plaintiff; and we think they are right in their decision. Referring to sec. 17, C.P.C., which refers to the Court in which a suit is to be instituted, we find that the suit may be brought, among other places, where the cause of action arises. And Explanation III of the section provides: "In suits arising out of contract, the cause of action arises within the meaning of this section at any of the following places, namely, (1) the place where the contract was made; (2) the place where the contract was to be performed or performance thereof completed; (3) the place where in performance of the contract any money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable." There may be some question here as to the place where the contract was actually made, (sic) there can be no doubt whatsoever(sic) regard to the correspondent (sic) parties, that the intention (sic) was (and in a case like this, the question is one of intention), that the contract should be performed at the Kishenpore Railway station. The advertisement which the Plaintiff had given with reference to this matter, if rightly read, and the letters that passed between the parties, make it perfectly clear that it was so. Then again, there can be equally no doubt that the price of the goods was payable not in Nadia, but in Samastipur where the Plaintiff resided, and where the goods were booked for transmission to the Defendant. In this view of the matter, we think that the point raised before us on the score of jurisdiction cannot be supported. 2. Then again, there can be equally no doubt that the price of the goods was payable not in Nadia, but in Samastipur where the Plaintiff resided, and where the goods were booked for transmission to the Defendant. In this view of the matter, we think that the point raised before us on the score of jurisdiction cannot be supported. 2. The other question that has been raised before us by the learned vakil for the Appellant is one which is rather of fact than of law, that question being whether the goods supplied by the Plaintiff answered the description of the goods which were agreed to be sold and delivered to the Defendant. The true question that seems to have been raised in the Court below was whether the seeds supplied were fresh seeds or they were fresh seeds mixed with old seeds; and upon this question the lower Appellate Court has distinctly found upon the evidence taken in the case that they were fresh seeds. This is a finding of fact which we are not at liberty to interfere with in a second appeal. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.