Order There appears to be no substance in these petitions, which are by the second defendant to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, holding that he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the second defendant. The suit is to recover Rs. 15,140-46 on the ground that it was owing to the plaintiff under a promissory note executed by the first defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge. The second defendant was added on the ground that he had guaranteed the debt though the guarantee was given in Ceylon. The contention for that defendant which did not prevail with the Subordinate Judge was that since the letter of guarantee was given outside the jurisdiction of that Court the suit against him was without jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge is clearly right. The guarantee given by the second defendant has no existence apart from the debt based on the promissory note which was admittedly executed within the territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for purposes of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure means the bundle of facts which a plaintiff will have to establish before he can get a decree based on those facts. Here the guarantee is inextricably bounded up with the debt itself and forms the bundle of facts which the plaintiff will have to establish to get a decree against both the defendants. On that view the Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction in respect of the suit. The petitions are dismissed with costs, one set. V.S. ----- Petitions dismissed.