( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, mysore, made in OS. 38 of 1970 whereby he returned the plaint under order VII, Rule 10 (1) of the CPC, for presentation to the proper Court. ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute and they will be found correctly stated in the order under appeal. It may be sufficient if I may set out a lew facts for the disposal of this appeal. The appellant sued the defendant for return of the over-paid money under the agreement-Ext. D1 dt. 20th. July 1968. One party to the agreement was the defendant and another parly was the proprietrix of m/s Anjana Match Works, which establishment has later been converted into a partnership firm, which was the plaintiff in the Court below. The defendant Was a Private Ltd Coy at Goa, which was engaged in the manufacture of matches. Under the said agreement, the defendant had agreed td sell its machineries as detailed thereunder. These were 'agreed to be sold for a total sum of Rs. 3,71,346-56, out of which Rs. 1,00,000 was paid to the defendant by way of earnest money by a cheque drawn on Canara banking Corporation Ltd, Mysore. The Cheque was delivered at Goa, but it was encashed at the Mysore Branch of the said Bank. The balance amount was also later paid by the plaintiff. But the defendant wanted extra amount to be paid for the raw materials in respect of which a clearance certificate was necessary from the Controller of Exports and imports. After obtaining the clearance certificate, the defendant refused to part with those raw materials without further payment. Since the said raw matecials were necessary for the manufacturing purpose, the plaintiff acceded to the demand of the defendant under protest and instituted the suit for recovery of the said extra payment ( 3 ) IT may be relevant to state that the agreement was drafted at goa and the defendant signed at Goa. The agreement was then taken to mysore where the proprietrix of Anjana: Match Works signed the agreement. ( 4 ) ON these facts, the question arose whether the Court of the Civil judge at Mysore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 5 ) THE trial Judge in a lengthy judgment has held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 4 ) ON these facts, the question arose whether the Court of the Civil judge at Mysore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 5 ) THE trial Judge in a lengthy judgment has held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him the entire contract was settled at Goa and the agreement, Ext. Dl, was executed only by way of ratification of the terms orally agreed upon by the parties at goa, and therefore, the plaintiff should file the suit at Goa. In paragraph-15 of the judgment, the reasons have been summarised by him as follows :"what followed thereafter is, according to PW. 1, preparation of the drafts of the agreement containing the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and signing of the same at first by dw. 1 at Goa for the defendant and later on by the proprietrix of the plaintiff at Mysore. The execution of Ext. D1 in such fashion was only to put into writing the contract that was concluded earlier when the proposal and counter proposals, as pointed out above, were accepted and an agreement was brought about. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be held that Ext. D1 with its enclosures was only a proposal sent by the defendant and it brought about a contract only when it was signed by the plaintiff's proprietrix in Mysore City. Therefore, in my opinion, the contract between the parties is not one brought about by correspondence. " ( 6 ) IT seems to me that it is unnecessary to enter into the controversy as to the place where the agreement was concluded. The fact remains that the contractual terms have been incorporated under Ext. D1, the draft of which was prepared at Goa. The defendant affixed his signature at Goa, but the proprietrix of Anjana Match Works signed it at Mysore. When one party signs the agreement at a place, it cannot be said that the Court of that place has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the money said to have been over-paid under that agreement. ( 7 ) MY view finds support from the observation in Shaw Wallace and co v. Gordhandas Khatao, ILR. 30 Bom. 364 at 377. That was a case in which the plaintiffs based their case upon two agreements. ( 7 ) MY view finds support from the observation in Shaw Wallace and co v. Gordhandas Khatao, ILR. 30 Bom. 364 at 377. That was a case in which the plaintiffs based their case upon two agreements. Almost all the terms of those agreements were agreed upon at Calcutta and most of the parties also signed at Calcutta. Only two of the plaintiffs executed the contract a,t bombay. For breach of the contract, the plaintiffs brought the suit on- the original side of the Bombay High Court of Judicature with the leave of the Court. The defendants opposed the said leave on the ground that the cause of action for the suit did not arise within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. While repelling the contention, Tyabji, J, observed thus:"as a matter of fact they have been executed by the two plaintiffs and I think that, without proving their signatures on these documents, there would be a great difficulty for the plaintiffs to succeed in the suit. The existence of the contract depends upon the assent of the plaintiffs, and it is admitted that two of the plaintiffs at least have executed the contract in Bombay. It is also alleged that visram Ebrahim and Co, also executed them in Bombay, but that is a point upon which there is a dispute. Taking it as an admitted fact that these two agreements were executed in Bombay by the two plaintiffs, I am unable to entertain even a doubt that a very material part of the cause of action accrued in Bombay- in fact, a part without which the plaintiffs must necessarily have failed. Therefore that being my opinion, it follows that under Cl. 12 of the Letters patent it is within the power of this Court to grant permission if it considered it fit under the circumstances of the case to grant such permission. " ( 8 ) THE contention for the defendant that Ext. D1 was only executed by way of ratification of the oral terms agreed upon by the parties, cannot be accepted. When the terms of the contract have been incorporated in a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract or of such matter except the document itself, as provided under s. 91 of the Evidence Act. When the terms of the contract have been incorporated in a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract or of such matter except the document itself, as provided under s. 91 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff has based the claim only on the agreement and the plaint states that the cause of action accrued on or after 28-7-1968, ie. , the date of the said agreement. That being the position, part of the cause of action thus undoubtedly arose at Mysore and the suit was therefore maintainable. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs in this appeal. Advocate's fee Rs. 200. 00. --- *** --- .