Judgement This appeal is from the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge. Lakhimpur District, Dibrugarh on 30-3-1968, by which he has ordered the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation in proper Court, as provided under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The Plaintiff Appellant has filed Money Suit No. 8 of 1966 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,055.78 p. for goods supplied including interest and costs from the Defendant No. 1. 3. Defendant No. 1 Kunchanpore Tea Estate, is the Principal Defendant. Assam Oil Company has been impleaded as Pro forma Defendant in the case. 4. The Plaintiffs case briefly is that it is a limited liability Company incoporated in Scotland and has been carrying on business among other places at Digboi as Distributor for the Assam Oil Company Ltd. in the district of Lakhimpur. The Plaintiff Company had been the sole marketing Agents and Distributors for the Assam Oil Company Ltd. for all their products and the Plaintiff is responsible to account to Assam Oil Company Limited for sale proceeds of all their products marketed by the Plaintiff and for that reason the Plaintiff has impleaded the Assam Oil Company Limited as Pro forma Defendant. 5. The Defendant Company carries on business as Tea Planter at Kunchanpore Tea Estate situated in the district of Cachar in Assam and the Defendant had credit facilities with the Plaintiff for purchasing petroleum products of Assam Oil Company marketed by the Plaintiff on condition of making payment to the Plaintiff at Digboi within 30 days from the date of the bills. The Defendant Company on credit terms purchased from the Plaintiffs Badarpurghat Depot situated in the district of Cachar various petroleum products and after deducting all the part payments made from time to time an outstanding balance of Rs. 11,888.28 p. is still due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims an amount of Rs. 1,167.50 p. as interest on the said arrear. Thus the total amount claimed in the suit by the Plaintiff is Rs. 13,055.78 p. Notwithstanding repeated demands after submission of regular monthly statements of accounts accepted by it, the Defendant neglected to pay the said outstanding dues. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of the said amount. 6. 1,167.50 p. as interest on the said arrear. Thus the total amount claimed in the suit by the Plaintiff is Rs. 13,055.78 p. Notwithstanding repeated demands after submission of regular monthly statements of accounts accepted by it, the Defendant neglected to pay the said outstanding dues. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of the said amount. 6. The Defendant Tea Company filed a written statement wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the Defendant carries on business at Kunchanpore Tea Estate in the district of Cachar, Assam, and its head office is situated in Calcutta. Moreover the agreement between the parties took place in Calcutta, the supplies thereunder were made at Badarpur in the district of Cachar and payment thereof was made in Calcutta. The Defendant also has specifically denied the alleged condition of making payment at Digboi and it has averred that the allegation made in the plaint that payment was to be made at Digboi in the district of Lakhimpur is false. The Defendant has also averred that the Plaintiff has got no right to sue, that the claim is barred by limitation, and that the amount claimed in the plaint is not due. 7. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed by the trial Court. 1. Is the suit maintainable in law in the present form? 2. Has the plaintiff any right to sue? 3. Did the cause of action arise on the dates as alleged? 4. Is any part of the claim barred by limitation? 5. Has the Court jurisdiction to try this suit? 6. Is the interest charged excessive? 7. What amount, if any, is due to the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1? 8. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 8. The learned trial Court took up issue No. 5 as the first issue for decision as it involves jurisdiction of the Court. On this issue the plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant also examined one witness. 9. The plaintiff has filed certain statements of account and bills which have been marked as Exts. 1 to 34 and Exts. 36 to 146, Ext. 35 is a letter sent by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff Company at Digboi. 10. On this issue the plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant also examined one witness. 9. The plaintiff has filed certain statements of account and bills which have been marked as Exts. 1 to 34 and Exts. 36 to 146, Ext. 35 is a letter sent by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff Company at Digboi. 10. After considering the evidence on record and the law on the point, the learned Assistant District Judge has held that the Court at Dibrugarh as no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and as such he has refused to discuss the other issues and ordered for return of the plaint for presentation in proper Court, as provided under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence this appeal. 11. In para 2 of the plaint it has been stated that the defendant carries on its business in the district of Cachar in Assam and it had credit facilities with the plaintiff for purchasing petroleum products of Defendant No. 2 marketed and sold by the Plaintiff on condition of paying to the Plaintiff at Digboi all bills made for sale of petroleum products to the Defendant No. 1 within 30 days from the date of the bills. In para 5 of the plaint it has been stated that the cause of action for the suit arose at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Sub-Judge, U. A. D. Dibrugarh. 12. Mr. P. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff Appellant submits that for the purpose of determination of the terriotrial jurisdiction of the Court for trying the instant suit the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code are attracted. 13. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :- "20. 12. Mr. P. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff Appellant submits that for the purpose of determination of the terriotrial jurisdiction of the Court for trying the instant suit the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code are attracted. 13. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :- "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises :- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction :- (a) the defeandant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I. :- Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence. Explanation II. :- A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." 14. The admitted position is that the registered office of Kunchanpore Tea Company Ltd. - the Principal Defendant is at Bentinck House, P-15, Bentinck Street, Calcutta 1 and it carries on business at Kunchanpore Tea Estate, P. O. Monacherra in the district of Cachar. The Assam Oil Company Ltd., a Company incorporated in England carries on business among other places in India at Digboi in the district of Lakhimpur. 15. The Assam Oil Company Ltd., a Company incorporated in England carries on business among other places in India at Digboi in the district of Lakhimpur. 15. In the circumstance clause (a) of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code is not attracted to the case and the Subordinate Judge, U. A. D. at Dibrugarh (now Assistant District Judge at Dibrugarh) has no jurisdiction to try the suit under clause (a) of Section 20. 16. The learned counsel for the Appellant therefore relies on clauses (b) and (c) of Section 20 and submits that the Court at Dibrugarh has jurisdiction to try the suit 17. So far as clause (b) of Section 20 is concerned, the learned Counsels submission is that Pro forma Defendant No. 2 carries on business at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dibrugarh and though leave of the Court was not obtained in this respect, as required by clause (b), this court may grant leave. 18. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the money claimed in the suit from the Principal Defendant and the Plaintiff has not claimed any relief against Pro forma Defendant No. 2 This is clear from the Plaintiffs statement in para 7 of the plaint. It is thus abundantly clear from the plaint itself that the Plaintiff claims no relief against Pro forma Defendant. The reason for impleading the Assam Oil Company Ltd. as a Defendant or Pro forma Defendant is not clear from the plaint and the procedure adopted by the Plaintiff in this regard appears to be dubious. 19. Order 1 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :- "3. Who may be joined as defendants. - All persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where, if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise." 20. Order 1 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :- "5. Defendant need not be interested in all the relief claimed. - It shall not be necessary that every defendant shall be interested as to all the relief claimed in any suit against him." 21. Order 1 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :- "5. Defendant need not be interested in all the relief claimed. - It shall not be necessary that every defendant shall be interested as to all the relief claimed in any suit against him." 21. In the instant case the Plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the Pro forma Defendant No. 2. In the circumstances Defendant No. 2, though the Plaintiff has made it a party, is really not a Defendant as contemplated under Order 1 Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. That being the position even though Pro forma Defendant may be carrying on business at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dibrugarh, clause (b) of Section 20 is not attracted to the instant case, and more particularly when the principal Defendant against whom only the Plaintiff has sought relief in the suit has not acquiesced in such institution of the suit but on the other hand has raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The question of granting leave by this Court does not at all arise. In the circumstances the learned counsels submission that the instant case is covered by clause (b) of Section 20 and the Court at Dibrugarh has jurisdiction to try the suit has no substance. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the cause of action arose wholly or in part at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dibrugarh. Therefore, under clause (c) of Section 20, the Court at Dibrugarh has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 23. The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that according to the agreement or arrangement between the Plaintiff and the Principal Defendant, the payment of the price of the goods sold was to be made at Digboi and this forms a part of the cause of action for the suit and hence the Court at Dibrugarh has jurisdiction to try the suit. 24. D. W. 1, Priyabrata Datta, who is the Managing Director of Kunchanpore Tea Company stated that the stipulation between the Defendant and the Plaintiff took place at Calcutta. 24. D. W. 1, Priyabrata Datta, who is the Managing Director of Kunchanpore Tea Company stated that the stipulation between the Defendant and the Plaintiff took place at Calcutta. The petroleum product goods were to be delivered from Badarpur to Kunchanpore Tea Estate within the Cachar District and the money was agreed to be paid by cheque at Calcutta and there was no stipulation for payment of money at Digboi. In cross-examination D. W. 1 stated that he was acting as Managing Director of the Company since 1959, that the agreement with the Plaintiff was made with him in the year 1959, and it was in writing. D. W. 1 added that he had no document with him relating to that agreement. 25. P. W. 1, Jogendra Nath Sarma, who is serving under the Plaintiff stated in cross-examination that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was made by letters, but they had not filed those letters in the suit, That Defendant No. 1 was of Cachar District and its head office was at Calcutta. P. W. 1 stated that the condition that the Defendant would have to pay money at Digboi was in writing, but that writing was not filed in Court. P. W. 1 stated that he could not say where the agreement was finalised. P. W. 1 further stated that Defendant No. 1 made its payment at Calcutta Branch and the petroleum product goods were delivered in Cachar district. 26. From the above evidence it is abundantly clear that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the principal Defendant 1 took place at Calcutta. The petroleum product goods for the balance price of which the present suit has been filed were admittedly delivered in the Cachar District. That being the position the suit could have been filed at Calcutta or in the Cachar District. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strenuously submits that there was the stipulation that the price of the goods would have to be paid at Digboi and as such cause of action arose at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dibrugarh. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P. W. 1. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strenuously submits that there was the stipulation that the price of the goods would have to be paid at Digboi and as such cause of action arose at Digboi within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dibrugarh. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 no doubt stated that there was a stipulation that the price would be paid at Digboi, but he categorically stated that there was an agreement in writing and that the agreement was made by letters, but the Plaintiff had not filed those letters in the suit. P. W. 1 further stated that the stipulation that the price had to be paid at Digboi was also in writing, but that writing was not filed in Court. The evidence of P. W. 1 in simple language is that the agreement including the stipulation that the price would have to be paid at Digboi was reduced into writing but the plaintiff did not produce those documents though those were with the Plaintiff. On the other hand D. W. 1 categorically stated that there was no stipulation for payment of money at Digboi. The learned counsel drew my attention to Ext. 38 and Ext. 99 and some other Exibits which are bills for the petroleum products submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant. At the foot Note of Ext. 38 it is written as follows :- "N. B. Cheque/demand draft should be drawn/bought on a Scheduled Bank either in Dibrugarh or Calcutta." 28. At the Foot Note of Ext. 99 It is written as follows : "N. B. Cheque/demand draft should be drawn/bought on a Scheduled Bank either in Digboi, Dibrugarh or Calcutta." 29. From the writings on the Foot Notes of the bills it is found that the cheques/drafts had to be drawn/ bought on a Scheduled Bank either in Digboi, or Dibrugarh or Calcutta. According to P. W. 1 Defendant made its payment at Calcutta Branch and the goods were delivered in Cachar. The foot notes in the bills do not prove that the price of the goods purchased in Cachar was stipulated to be paid at Digboi or Dibrugarh. The bills are in printed forms. 30. According to P. W. 1 Defendant made its payment at Calcutta Branch and the goods were delivered in Cachar. The foot notes in the bills do not prove that the price of the goods purchased in Cachar was stipulated to be paid at Digboi or Dibrugarh. The bills are in printed forms. 30. Regarding the place of payment P. W. 1 stated in cross-examination as follows :- "The Defendant No. 1 made his payment at Calcutta Branch. Our goods were delivered at Cachar district. It is written in our bill, that the money is to be paid at Digboi or Calcutta. The forms of the bill are printed. Such bills ere prepared for all our customers, whatever may be agreement with them." 31. From the evidence given by P. W. 1 it is quite clear that the writing at the foot of the bills did not conclusively prove that the agreement was to the effect that the price was to be paid at Dibrugarh or Digboi. Obviously the place of payment of the price would depend upon the agreement made between the parties to that effect. When the agreement or other relevant documents have not been produced by the Plaintiff in the instant case, it cannot be held that there was a stipulation that the price of the goods sold in Cachar District was to be paid in Digboi or Dibrugarh. 32. There is no reliable evidence to prove that there was a stipulation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the price of the goods delivered in Cachar district would have to be paid at Digboi or at Dibrugarh. On the other hand P. W. 1 admitted that the defendant made payment at Calcutta Branch. On consideration of the entire evidence on the point it has to be held that the payment was to be made at Calcutta as alleged by the Defendant. The agreement was made at Calcutta, the goods were delivered in the district of Cachar, and the payment had to be made at Calcutta. 33. In the circumstances in any view of the matter it cannot be said that cause of action for the suit wholly or in part arose at Digboi or Dibrugarh. Hence the Court at Dibrugarh has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 34. 33. In the circumstances in any view of the matter it cannot be said that cause of action for the suit wholly or in part arose at Digboi or Dibrugarh. Hence the Court at Dibrugarh has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 34. In the result it is found that the learned Assistant District Judge correctly held that the Court of the Assistant District Judge at Dibrugarh had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and as such he correctly ordered for return of the plaint to the Plaintiff for presenting in proper Court, as provided under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 35. In the result this appeal has no merit and is dismissed, with costs. Appeal dismissed.