Judgment :- 1. The second defendant who claimed that the lower court at Quilon had no jurisdiction to try the suit and lost is the petitioner before me. 2. The first defendant was the stake holder in a chitty; and the second and third defendants were sureties. The second defendant, the petitioner, gave also immovable properties as security. The chitty was not properly conducted; and the plaintiff, the first respondent who was a subscriber in the chitty, brought the suit. The petitioner's claim was that, since the properties given as security by him were situate within the jurisdiction of the court at Mavelikara, the suit cannot be filed at Quilon it should have been instituted at Mavelikara. 3. The Subordinate Judge has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Pulickel Estates (1947) Ltd. v. Joseph (1955 (2) MLJ. 228) by Balakrishna Aiyar, J., who, in a similar case, held that the Madras Court had jurisdiction and not the Ottappalam Court. The correctness of that decision is being challenged in this revision petition. In the alternative, it is claimed that that decision does not apply to the present case. 4. I have seen the decision of the Madras High Court; and I am in entire agreement with the reasoning of Balakrishna Aiyar J. However, I am prepared even to agree with the contention of the counsel of the petitioner that the said decision does not apply to the present case in view of certain averments in the plaint: still, the petitioner cannot succeed. There are three defendants in this suit; and it cannot be disputed that the suit against the first defendant was properly laid in the court at Quilon. The contract was with the first defendant: that was at Quilon: the breach of that contract was also at Quilon. If so, for the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the Mavelikara court bad also jurisdiction since the properties given as security were at Mavelikara, still the jurisdiction of the Quilon court is not taken away. In such a case where there are two courts which have jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the right to choose the court in which he should institute bis suit: the defendant cannot insist on the choice of the forum. This proposition is well-founded and well-established. In this view of the matter also, the suit was properly instituted in the Quilon Court. In such a case where there are two courts which have jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the right to choose the court in which he should institute bis suit: the defendant cannot insist on the choice of the forum. This proposition is well-founded and well-established. In this view of the matter also, the suit was properly instituted in the Quilon Court. The Civil revision Petition is dismissed with costs. The records will be sent back without delay. Dismissed.