JUDGMENT & ORDER : 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. 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. 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 received by the defendant at Bombay and repairs were carried out the cause of action will arise in Bombay. Where an order for work is sent by post and without formal acceptance the work is carried out in the district where the order is received the whole cause of action arises in the latter district, (Halsbury, Second Edition, Vol.8, page 191). 7. Fourthly, the wrist watch was entrusted to the care of the defendant at Bombay and could have been obtained from the defendant there. There is no allegation in the plaint that either expressly, or by implication the defendants had agreed either to repair the watch, or to send it to Ujjain. 8. Fifthly, if a person wrongfully converts goods and receives the amount, the owner of the goods may either sue in tort or may waive the tort, and recover the proceeds in an action for money had and received, - 'Thorappa Devanappa v. Ummedmalji', 25 Bom LR 604: 87 Ind Cas 226: AIR 1924 Bom 205. This latter action is based on an implied contract of agency, the defendant being fictitiously assumed to have rightfully received the money as the plaintiff's agent, and to have failed to pay it over to his principal, - 'Brockle Bank Ltd. v. R.', (1925) 1 KB 52. But, where the plaintiff does not so elect, his suit will be taken to be in tort and the jurisdiction will be determined by Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 'Mulsing Dawlatram Firm v. Fatechand Anraj', AIR 1936 Sind 229. 9. In fact, the allegations in the plaint in this ease do not state a cause of action in contract but the gravamen of the complaint is definitely a tort. Where there is no contractual relation, either express or implied, alleged in the plaint, an action of tort has to be assumed In this connection I may usefully refer to Corpus Juris, Vol. Where there is no contractual relation, either express or implied, alleged in the plaint, an action of tort has to be assumed In this connection I may usefully refer to Corpus Juris, Vol. I page 1020 where illustration 2 (under foot note 18) runs as follows : "Where property has been converted, but the pleadings do not show that it has been converted into money, a suit to recover the value of property is an action ex delicto and not ex-contractu." 10. On page 1019, it is mentioned : "Actions in tort include an action to recover damages for a conversion ........................... and generally, wherever it appears that the object of the action is to recover damages for a tortious act on the part of the defendant, or that, although either form of action might be maintained, the gist of the action is a wrong or breach of duty imposed by law, as distinguished from a mere breach of contract." 11. Now, so far as the suit is one in tort and the provisions of Section 19 C.P. Code apply, in my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Small Causes Court is right. Section 20 C.P. Code is subject to the limitation of Section 19. The opening words of Section 20 are: "Subject to the limitation aforesaid", and, section 19 reads as follows : "Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to moveable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts." 12. The allegations in the plaint are that the wrong to the wrist watch was done at Bombay and the defendant also carries on business there and in the circumstances of this case, I am clear in my mind that the Ujjain Court had no jurisdiction. 13. I, therefore, dismiss the revision with costs.