Bapna, J.—This is a revision against an Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 8th of August, 1958 in misc. case No. 3 of 1958. 2. Manmohanlal contractor undertook to construct an Assembly Hall in the Government College, Ajmer for the Union of India. Tenders were invited for the work by the Divisional Officer, Central Public Works Department Ajmer and Manmohanlal was one of the persons who submitted a tender for the work. He received a letter (Ex. D. 2) from the Executive Engineer, Ajmer Construction Division, C.P.W.D. Ajmer as follows :— Shri Man Mohan Lal, Govt. Contractor, Kaiser Ganj, Ajmer. No. 7261-68. Dated 14.5.1956. Sub :—Construction of Assembly Hall at Govt. College, Ajmer. Dear sir, Your tender for the work mentioned above has been accepted on behalf of the President of India at your tendered percentage of Rs. 4/11/-% above the estimated cost. (2) You are requested to attend this office to complete the formal agreement within seven days of the receipt of this letter. (3) Your are also requested to arrange to start the work at once. The date of commencement will be reckoned from the date of issue of this letter. Time of Completion:—9 months. Yours faithfully, Sd/- K. C. Jain Executive Engineer, Ajmer Construction Division. Copies of this were sent to the Superintending Engineer and various other officers. 3. This tender was subject to general directions and conditions of contract for works on percentage tender, and Clause 25, in short, provided that all questions and disputes arising out of the contract or relating thereto, shall be referred to sole arbitration of the Additional Cheif Engineer, or if he is unwilling to work, to the sole arbitrator appointed by him and willing to act in the matter. 4. Certain disputes arose between the parties, and the Additional Chief Engineer appointed Mr. O.P. Mittal, Superintending Engineer, C. P. W. D , New Delhi as the arbitrator. Mr. Mittal gave notice to Mr. Man Mohan Lal Agarwal, the contractor and the Executive Engineer, Ajmer Central Division representing the other party to the dispute to present to him a statement of facts within a fortnight from the date of the issue of the letter and further directed that each one of the parties should supply a copy to the other party. Mr. Man Mohan Lal submitted his statement of the dispute on 20th of December, 1957. Mr. Man Mohan Lal submitted his statement of the dispute on 20th of December, 1957. It may be briefly stated as under:— Dispute No, 1:—According to item No. 16 of the agreement, the Contractor had to do a certain quantity of Mild Steel reinforcement for R. C. C. work for which the department was to issue material at Rs. 25/- per cwt., but it was actually issued at Rs. 30/- per cwt. plus 2%. Storage charges. He stated that cement for the same purpose was to be issued by the Department at Rs. 86/- per ton, but was issued at Rs. 105/-per ton plus 2% storage charges. Further, the contractor was required to do a much greater quantity for R. C. C. work against item No. 16 and he should not be compelled to carry out unlimited quantities of additional work over the agreement quantity of item No. 16. The claimant requested the Executive Engineer to finalize his bill for the quantities of work already executed by him and not to press him for carrying out further work against item No. 16, Dispute No. 2:—Dispute No.2, shortly stated, was that although the Contractor had requested for an arbitrator to be appointed to decide whether he was responsible for executing additional quantities of work mentioned in dispute No. 1. the Executive Engineer threatened for action being taken under Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement and the case of the Contractor was that there was no justification for the Executive Engineer to take action under Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement. 5. The Counter Statement submitted by the Executive Engineer, Ajmer Central Division on behalf of the Union of India was: — (1) That, the contractor was not justified in refusing to do the additional quantities of work as he could be called upon to do the additional work under clause 12 of the Agreement. It was also stated that the recovery of the cost of steel and cement supplied at the higher rates, was properly made. It was also stated that the recovery of the cost of steel and cement supplied at the higher rates, was properly made. (2) With respect to dispute No. 2, the case was that the Contractor had not kept pace with the stipulated period at the intermediate intervals as well as the final, completion of the work and was liable to pay compensation under clause 2 of the Agreement and further, as he did not execute the work which was required to be done, he had rendered himself liable to action under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Agreement. 6. Clause 12, in short, of the General conditions of work, authorised the Engineer-m-charge to make alterations and additions to original specifications and to direct the contractor to execute the additional work on the rates specified in the tender for the main work. 7. Clause 2, in short, says that the time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be reckoned from the date on which the order to commence work is given to the contractor. Mention is made as to how the work shall be proceeded with at stipulated intervals with the clause and that in the event of the contractor failing to comply with this direction, he shall be liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to one per cent or such similar amount as the Superintending Engineer may decide on the said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that the due quantity of work remains incomplete: Provided that the entire amount of compensation was not to exceed ten per cent on the estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender. 8. Clause 3 lays in brief that in any case in which there is breach of certain clause or clauses or the contract, the contractor shall render himself liable to pay compensation amounting to the whole of his security deposit and further the Divisional Officer on behalf of the President of India, shall have power to adopt any of the following courses ; as he may deem best suited to the Government:— (a) To rescind the contract and in which case, the security deposit of the contractor shall stand forfeited and will be absolutely at the disposal of the Government. (b) To employ labour paid by the Public Works Department and to supply materials to carry out the work, or any part of the work, debiting the contractor with the cost of the labour and the price of the materials so supplied and crediting him with the value of the work done, as if it had been carried out by the contractor ; (c) To measure up the work of the contractor, and to take such part thereof as shall be unexecuted out of his hands and to give it to another contractor and to hold the contractor responsible for the expenses in excess of what might have been payable to the original contractor. That, in, the event of any of the above courses being adopted by the Divisional Officer, the contractor shall have no claim to compensation for any loss sustained by him in various manners mentioned in the clause. 9. On 3rd June, 1958, Shri Mittal wrote to the parties that he entered upon the reference on 13th December, 1957, but as the period of four months had elapsed; the parties may take action to obtain from competent court extension of time for a period of four months from the date of such extension and forward the same to the arbitrator. 10. The arbitrator perhaps thought that joint action will be taken by the parties in the matter, but as it happened, each one of the parties moved different courts for the same purpose. The present revision arises out of an application under sec. 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act made by Manmohan Lal to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. 11. Shri Manmohan Lal submitted an application through his advocate to the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer on 30th June, 1958 for extension of time by four months. It was mentioned that the Court had jurisdiction as the agreement was executed at Ajmer and the work was also done at Ajmer and its value was Rs. 2,28,000/-. It was mentioned that the application had been made, because the arbitrator had directed the parties to obtain an extension of four months time from the competent court. The other party to the dispute was mentioned to be the Union of India through the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D., Ajmer. 12. 2,28,000/-. It was mentioned that the application had been made, because the arbitrator had directed the parties to obtain an extension of four months time from the competent court. The other party to the dispute was mentioned to be the Union of India through the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D., Ajmer. 12. On behalf of the Union of India, Shri G.T. Gajria, standing counsel for C.P.W.D. filed an objection on 7th July, 1958 that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the respondent (Union of India) had already submitted an application for same purpose in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi on 11th June, 1958, which was transferred to the court of Shri Gyan Chand Jain, Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, who had directed notice to be issued to the contractor for 4th August, 1958. On the merits, it was admitted that a dispute had arisen in connection with the carrying out or the construction of the Assembly Hall in the Government College, Ajmer, between the parties and an arbitrator had been appointed for the purpose. It was not denied that the arbitrator had asked the parties to obtain an extension of time. The contention On behalf of the Union of India was that the tender had been accepted by the Superintending Engineer at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi court had also the jurisdiction to entertain an application under sec. 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It was then urged that where two courts can have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the Arbitration Act, the court in which the first application has been made under the Act shall alone have the jurisdiction over all subsequent proceedings arising out of the arbitration. The argument was that since the application had been made first in point of time in Delhi court, that court alone could deal with the matter. 13. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer after going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, passed the order on 9th of August, 1958. He held that the Executive Engineer, Ajmer took the tender from the contractor and after its acceptance gave instructions to the contractor to carry on the work which was to be performed at Ajmer and that the court at Ajmer had jurisdiction to entertain the application under sec. He held that the Executive Engineer, Ajmer took the tender from the contractor and after its acceptance gave instructions to the contractor to carry on the work which was to be performed at Ajmer and that the court at Ajmer had jurisdiction to entertain the application under sec. 28 of the Arbitration Act and further that the Delhi court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application simply because the tender was accepted by the Superintending Engineer, Delhi. 14. The present revision has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. If was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the contract should be taken to have been made at Delhi, where the tender had been accepted by the Superintending Engineer, Delhi and a part of the cause of action, thus, arose at Delhi and since the application had been made first in point of time in Delhi court, that court alone had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter and, therefore, it should be held thai the Ajmer court had no jurisdiction and the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer should be quashed. 15. It may be stated that both the parties were agreeable that the extension of time of four months from the date of the order of the court should be obtained for the arbitration proceedings to be completed and award made by the arbitrator and, therefore, apparently the contest is only academic, but it was brought to my notice that the arbitrator had given his award in the extended period and the contractor had taken steps to have the award filed in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer and the Union of India has come to have some difficulty in opposing the award in the court at Ajmer and, therefore, this revision has assumed importance. 16. Under sec. 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, "court" means a civil court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include a small cause court, except for a particular purpose with which we are not concerned. 17. The subject-matter of the reference has been briefly stated above. The contractor was asked by the Executive Engineer to execute certain additional work at the rates mentioned in the tender. 17. The subject-matter of the reference has been briefly stated above. The contractor was asked by the Executive Engineer to execute certain additional work at the rates mentioned in the tender. The contractor did not agree that the clause permitted the Executive Engineer to execute additional quantities of work without any limit and urged that he was not bound to execute the additional work in the circumstances of the case after he had done considerable additional work under the agreement. The Executive Engineer, however, was holding the contractor liable to pay compensation for delay in the work and for not carrying out the additional work, which he was bound to do under the terms of the contract. 18. It was argued by learned counsel for the Union of India that the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference could be said to be whether the contractor had committed breach of the contract in refusing to carry out the additional quantities of work and had thus rendered himself liable under clauses 2 and 3 of the Agreement for action to be taken by the Executive Engineer. A large number of authorities were cited in support of the principle that in actions on breach of contract, a Court has jurisdiction in the territorial limits whereof the contract was entered into. The contractor had submitted his tender at Ajmer, but it was accepted by the Superintending Engineer, Delhi on the 9th of May, 1956. It was urged that the formal communication of acceptance was only done by the Executive Engineer on the 14th of May, 1956 to the contractor. It was urged that as the acceptance was made at Delhi, a part of the cause of action arose at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi court had jurisdiction and when once that court had been moved, all subsequent actions have to be taken in that court and for that reason, the court at Ajmer had no jurisdiction. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the estimated value of the work was such that the tender could only be accepted by the Superintending Engineer. (It was stated in the tender that it was to be accepted by the Additional Chief Engineer, but the power was subsequently conferred upon the Superintending Engineer to do so). 19. Learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the estimated value of the work was such that the tender could only be accepted by the Superintending Engineer. (It was stated in the tender that it was to be accepted by the Additional Chief Engineer, but the power was subsequently conferred upon the Superintending Engineer to do so). But It was urged that under para 91 of the Central Public Works Department Code, the Divisional Officer was the person who was competent to enter into the agreement on behalf of the President after acceptance of the tender by competent authority and that in the present case, it was the Executive Engineer (who was also the Divisional Officer) who actually entered into the agreement with the contractor in respect of the contract. The relevant portion of para 91 is as follows :— " An Officer of the Public Works Department may accept a tender for a contract up to the amount to which he is authorised to accord technical sanction to the estimates. Tenders above Rs. 3,00,000/- in the case of Delhi State Circle, and above Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of others being accepted on the advice of the Central Works Advisory Board and the Minister Works, Housing & Supply by the Superintending Engineer, Delhi State Circle or the Chief Engineer-/Assistant Chief Engineer, as the case may be. The Divisional Officer, will however, sign the agreement on behalf of the President after the tender for the work has been accepted by the competent authority. 20. Art. 299 of the Constitution of India says that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union of India, shall be expressed to be made by the President and all such contracts shall be executed on behalf of the President by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise. 21. Under para 91 aforesaid, the Divl. Officer (the Executive Engineer) was authorised to sign the agreement for and on behalf of the President after it had been accepted by the competent authority. The Superintending Engineer, Delhi, no doubt, accepted the tender in the present case at Delhi, but he did not proceed to communicate that acceptance to the contractor. He only wrote to the Executive Engineer that the tender had been accepted. This is proved by letter Ex. The Superintending Engineer, Delhi, no doubt, accepted the tender in the present case at Delhi, but he did not proceed to communicate that acceptance to the contractor. He only wrote to the Executive Engineer that the tender had been accepted. This is proved by letter Ex. A. 1, the relevant portion whereof is as follows :— New Delhi, the 9th May, 1956. No. W.A. l88/9724 To, The Executive Engineer, Ajmer Construction Division, C.P.W.D., Ajmer. Sub :—Construction of Assembly Hall at Govt., College, Ajmer. Ref:—Correspondence resting with his letter No. 6745 dated 28.4.56. The Executive Engineer is informed that the lowest tender of Shri Manmohan Lal at Rs. 4/11/-, per cent above has been, accepted subject to the following remarks Necessary orders to start the work may please be issued to the contractor immediately after complying with the instruction of the Chief Engineer, contained in his office memo No. C-III dated 26.9.51 under intimation to this office. Accepted tender along with comparative statement, approved N. I. T. and rejected tenders are returned herewith. The agreement for work should please be prepared with great care and submitted to this office immediately for acceptance along with three spare copies of agreement, comparative statement and N.I.T. papers. Please acknowledge receipt. Dated 8.5.1956. Sd/- Shri Krishna, Superintending Engineer. 22. It is apparent on a perusal of this letter that this was a departmental communication made by the Supdt. Engineer to the Executive Engineer and it was left to the Executive Engineer to place the necessary order to start the work. The order given by the Executive Engineer (Ex A 2) has already been reproduced above. The letter Ex. A-2 in law is the letter of acceptance of the tender and although the execution of formal agreement is in contemplation, the contract between Shri Manmohanlal and the Union of India becomes complete by the issue of letter Ex. A-2, dated 14th of May, 1956. Under the Code, the Executive Engineer was authorized to enter into the contract on behalf of the President and it is immaterial that he could do so only after taking sanction by higher authorities. Whatever the inter-departmental arrangements may be, the Executive Engineer was the person who held himself out as the authorised representative of the President vis-a-vis the contractor. Under the Code, the Executive Engineer was authorized to enter into the contract on behalf of the President and it is immaterial that he could do so only after taking sanction by higher authorities. Whatever the inter-departmental arrangements may be, the Executive Engineer was the person who held himself out as the authorised representative of the President vis-a-vis the contractor. I agree with the lower court that the acceptance of the offer was made at Ajmer, although the sanction for the work was accorded by the Superintending Engineer at Delhi. The work was to start as mentioned in Ex. A-2. The date of commencement was to be reckoned from the date of issue of the letter and, therefore, the subsequent drawing up of a formal agreement, Ex. A-3, dated 21st of August, 1956 to which Mr. Manmohanlal and Mr. V.Kandaswamy,Superintending Engineer,Deihi are signatories, does not at all affect the matter. 23 It may, however, be mentioned that Mr. K. C. Jain, Executive Engineer, Ajmer is also a signatory of this document. He was authorised, as mentioned above, to execute the agreement on behalf of the President of India and as soon as he affixed his signatures to the document, the agreement became complete and any subsequent authentication by the Superintending Engineer was a surplusage. 24. In this view of the matter, no cause of action or any part thereof, arose at Delhi and the lower court was right in granting extension of time, which it did. 25. Assuming that the acceptance of the tender made at Delhi, even when such acceptance was not put in the course of transmission to the contractor, amounted to the contract having come into existence on that day at Delhi, the point which further remains to be examined is whether the suit in respect of the subject-matter of the reference could be instituted at Delhi. Several authorities have been cited that in actions for breach of contract, the place where the contract is made is one where a part of the cause of action arises. This may be so. What has to be seen is what relief the party could claim in a suit if filed. The nature of the dispute between the parties has already been stated above. It is not disputed that it was the contractor, who had moved for arbitration in the matter. This may be so. What has to be seen is what relief the party could claim in a suit if filed. The nature of the dispute between the parties has already been stated above. It is not disputed that it was the contractor, who had moved for arbitration in the matter. If the matter referred to arbitration could be made the subject of a suit, the relief claimed would have been that the Executive Engineer, Ajmer Div. be restrained by an injunction from taking recourse under clauses 2 and 3 of the Agreement inasmuch as the contractor had not violated any terms of the contract in refusing to execute certain additional constructions, which he had been ordered to do by the Executive Engineer. This suit for an injunction could only be brought at Ajmer, the place where the Executive Engineer had his office. The contract that had been entered into between the parties was not in dispute. The real dispute was whether the refusal by the contractor to execute certain additional work made him liable to certain penalties and the case of the contractor was that he was nor liable for any action being taken against him by the Executive Engineer. As stated above, the office of the Executive Engineer was situated at Ajmer and the court at Ajmer could only have the jurisdiction in case the suit had been instituted, in respect of the matter referred to arbitration. On this view too, the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Ajmer had the jurisdiction, and the Delhi Court would not have the jurisdiction in the matter. 26. Learned counsel for the Union or India contended that the action had been taken by the Union of India in the Delhi court. The contractor did not file any objection at that place. But he made an application to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. (perhaps before he received notice from the Delhi Court) It was urged that since, there were two courts in which the matter had been placed, one such court, viz. the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer was not competent to say that the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction. But he made an application to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. (perhaps before he received notice from the Delhi Court) It was urged that since, there were two courts in which the matter had been placed, one such court, viz. the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer was not competent to say that the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction. What the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer really decided was that his Court had the jurisdiction and in coming to that conclusion, the court had to decide that the application which the Union of India had made at Delhi was made to a court which was not competent to deal with the matter. The Union of India could have moved an application under sec. 22 C.P.C. to this Court on receipt of notice from the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer and this Court would have decided under sec. 23 C.P.C. as to which court had the jurisdiction. If this Court had had to decide the matter under sec. 23 C.P.C, I have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Ajmer court would have been upheld. 27. As a result, I am of opinion that this revision has no force and is dismissed with costs.