JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to sell the goods of the latter in the Madras Presidency among other places. The present suit was filed in the Sub-Court at Tinnevelly. Under para. 10 of the contract between the parties the defendant was not to sell the goods in the area allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that this was done in contravention of the agreement. The case seems to be practically identical with that reported in Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao 70 Ind. Cas. 284 : 14 L.W. 341. We follow that decision, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct that the suit be taken on his file. 2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff his costs.