( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order made by the Civil Judge, Shimoga directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a Company registered under the Indian Companies act, having its head office at Bhadravathi. The defendant is a registered partnership firm having its office at Amritsar. The plaintiff was a regular customer of the defendant to purchase an alloy called "low carbon ferro molybdenum". On one occasion, the plaintiff contracted to purchase 15 tonnes of that alloy, but it did not receive the goods although the defendant had despatched, it appears that the transporting agency, to whom the goods were entrusted, became insolvent. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit for damages in the Court of the Civil Judge, shimoga, claiming Rs. 33,507-33 from the defendant for breach of contract. ( 3 ) IT was alleged in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose at Bhadravathi, from where the purchase order was issued and from where the agreed amount under the invoices was paid to the defendant. The purchase order referred to in the plaint is Ext. . P5 dated 8th august, 1969. The invoices referred to therein are Exts. P1 to P4 dated 25th March, 1970 and 4th July, 1970, to which I will make a detailed reference in a moment later. ( 4 ) WHILE resisting the suit, the defendant contended in the written statement that the contract was made at Amritsar: that the offer was communicated and finally accepted at Amritsar, and 'therefore, the Civil judge Court at Shimoga has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 5 ) ON the preliminary question regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, the plaintiff has examined S. Venkatagiriyappa (PW. 1), and the Deft has examined Brij Bhushan Mehra (DW. l ). PW. 1 has stated that the plaintiff had transactions with the defendant and placed purchase order for 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum as per Ext. P5 dt. Sth August, 1969. He has also stated that the payments were made by the plaintiff to the defendant at Bhadravathi against the goods contracted for. DW. l ). PW. 1 has stated that the plaintiff had transactions with the defendant and placed purchase order for 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum as per Ext. P5 dt. Sth August, 1969. He has also stated that the payments were made by the plaintiff to the defendant at Bhadravathi against the goods contracted for. DW. 1 while admitting that his firm had transactions with the plaintiff, has stated that the defendant quoted rates for supply of low carbon ferro molybdenum which the plaintiff had offered to purchase as per Ext. D1, which offer the defendant accepted on 4th August, 1969 as per the letter marked as Ext. D6. I will refer to these letters in detail a little later. ( 6 ) IT may be relevant to state that under Exts. P1 to P4, which are the invoices referred to above, there is a note at the bottom of each invoice, stating thus : " Subject to Amritsar jurisdiction". The learned Judge after considering the evidence, and in particular the above condition, has held that the contract was accepted as per Ext d1; and the purchase order Ext. P5 was only a formality. He said that by reason of the exclusion of jurisdiction of all Courts except that of the court at Amritsar under Exts. P1 to P4, the Court at Shimoga has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 7 ) IF it is shown that a part of the cause of action in respect of the plaintiff's claim arose within the local limits of the trial Court, it is undisputed that the suit is maintainable under Sec. 20 (c) of the CPC. In order to find out whether a part of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the lower Court, the Court must look into the. whole of the correspondence which has been exchanged between the parties. In thomas Hussey v. John Home-Payne and G. M. Horne-Payne, 1978-9 Vol. 4 App Cases 311. Lord cairns observed :" Where you have to find your contract or your note or memorandum of the terms of the contract in letters, you must take into consideration the whole of the correspondence which has passed. In thomas Hussey v. John Home-Payne and G. M. Horne-Payne, 1978-9 Vol. 4 App Cases 311. Lord cairns observed :" Where you have to find your contract or your note or memorandum of the terms of the contract in letters, you must take into consideration the whole of the correspondence which has passed. You must not at one particular time draw a line and say ' we will look at the letters upto this point and find in them a contract or not, but we will look at nothing beyond ". Let me now examine the correspondence exchanged between the parties to find out the place or places where the offer and acceptance were made, resulting in the contract in question. In the beginning of July 1969, the plaintiff enquired from the defendant whether they were in a position to supply 15 tonnes of molybdenum. In reply to the said enquiry, the defendant wrote a letter dated 4th July, 1969, stating thus :" * * * we will be despatching your balance is tons of ferro molybdenum middle next week. Regarding further 15 tons, we can accept for October/december 1969 delivery at Rs. 43,000 per Moton nor amritsar. The increase in price is necessitated by going up of the price of raw material in the international market by about 20 %, and they are still going up. This is subject to your telegraphic confirmation per return. . . . "in reply to the said letter, the plaintiff wrote as per Ext. D1 dated 23rd july, 1969 thus : " Dear Sir, sub : Low Carbon ferro molybdenum. Please refer to your letters dt. 4-7-69 and 12-7-69 offering 15 M tons of low carbon ferro molybdenum at Rs. 43,000 per tonne f. o. r amritsar, and in reply we have passed on our acceptance by a telegram of date reading as under:'ref. your let. MFA19713169 twelth July offer for fifteen tonnes ferromoly at Rs. Forty-three thousand per ton. Analysis in conformity our order ASP/722 accepted stop separate order follows. 'mysiron' we have noted that deliveries would be October! December 1969 and please note that the chemical analysis of this 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum should be in line with the material we have received against our order No. ASP. 722 and the analysis of same is reproduced below: mc 60-65%, C 0-15% Max. , SI 1-50% Max. 'mysiron' we have noted that deliveries would be October! December 1969 and please note that the chemical analysis of this 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum should be in line with the material we have received against our order No. ASP. 722 and the analysis of same is reproduced below: mc 60-65%, C 0-15% Max. , SI 1-50% Max. , S 0-05% Max. , P 0-05% Max. , Cu 0-05% Max. A separate purchase order indicating our terms and conditions will be issued and will follow this letter. Please accept and confirm the order immediately. Thanking you, yours faithfully , for The Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd, sd| commercial Manager. "it is seen from the above letter that the plaintiff had earlier sent a telegram expressing its willingness to purchase 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum. Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiff asked for some concession in the price, for which the defendant wrote as per Ext d6 dated 4th August, 1969 in the followng words. " Dear Sir, sub : Supply of 15 M. Tonnes I'erro molybdenum. We are in receipt of your letter Mo. P/asp/876/8386 of the 26th july 1969 and have to inform you that we received your telegram and letter of the 23rd July 1969 and thereto we booked your order for 15 m. tonnes ferro molybdenum at Rs. 43,000 per ton f. o. r. Amritsar which already stands confirmed. Since you desire some concession, in terms of our letter No. MFA 9777/69 dt. 21st July, 1969 we allow you Rs. 500 per ton as discount over the contracted rate. This was the maximum we had thought to reduce our price in event of your counter offer and in view of our interest for continued regular supply to your kindselves. We are sure our gesture will receive due recognition. Assuring you always our best attentions, we remain, yours faithfully, for Mehra Ferro Alloys, sd! the above reply clearly indicates that the defendant communicated to the plaintiff that it had received the acceptance and accordingly booked the order for 15 M. tonnes of ferro molebdenum by allowing discount of rs. 500 per ton over the contract rate. Thereafter, the plaintiff placed a formal order as per Ext. P5 dt. the above reply clearly indicates that the defendant communicated to the plaintiff that it had received the acceptance and accordingly booked the order for 15 M. tonnes of ferro molebdenum by allowing discount of rs. 500 per ton over the contract rate. Thereafter, the plaintiff placed a formal order as per Ext. P5 dt. Sth August, 1969 stating thus : " Please supply the following goods according to the terms, conditions and instructions specified herein, overleaf, all goods should be consigned to the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd and not to Self and booked to Bhadravathi (Southern Railway) by goods train unless otherwise specified. A copy of the packing list showing our Order No. must be included in the package and in MPA/1948/6p dt. 5-8-69 in addition to what is specified under 3 overleaf an extra copy of the packing list quoting Order no. and R|r No. should be posted direct to the Superintendent. Stores the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd, Bhadravathi "originally, it was agreed that the goods were to be despatched by passenger train. But the defendant informed the plaintiff that it would be convenient to despatch the goods by road transport for quick delivery, which mode of transport was agreed upon by the plaintiff. ( 8 ) FROM the letters exchanged between the parties, it is evident that the defendant being the owner of the goods offered to sell 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum at Rs. 43,000 per metric ton as per letter dt. 4th July, 1969 and the same was accepted by the plantiff by telegram dt. 23rd July, 1969 followed up by confirmatory letter of the same date as per Ext. D1. The acceptance was thus complete resulting in the contract in question. When the communication is sent by post or telegram, the principle is that the acceptance is-complete when the letter is posted or the telegram handed in. (see Chitty on Contracts, Vol-I, 23rd edition, page 33, Item 62 ). ( 9 ) IT must be stated that Ext. D6 was not an acceptance of the offer as stated by the defendant in its written statement. The defendant cannot offer and accept their own goods. They had just communicated the plaintiff that they had received the acceptance from the plaintiff. While intimating so, they allowed a little concesson to the plaintiff by reducing the rate at Rs. 500 per metricton. The defendant cannot offer and accept their own goods. They had just communicated the plaintiff that they had received the acceptance from the plaintiff. While intimating so, they allowed a little concesson to the plaintiff by reducing the rate at Rs. 500 per metricton. The contents of Ext. P5 show that it was a formal order placed by the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff's letter Ext. D-1 in which it has been stated that a separate purchase order Would be issued. It is, therefore, clear that the contract to purchase 15 tonnes of low carbon ferro molybdenum was complete when the plaintiff accepted the offer by sending the said telegram and the letter ext. D1. That was evidently at Bhadravathi and hence the Court at shimoga must be held to have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 10 ) THE learned Judge without looking into those documents, has erroneously held that the jurisdiction of the Courts outside Amritsar has been excluded. The condition found in Exts. P1 to P4, the invoices which were subsequently passed on by the defendant, are not relevant for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit for breach of contract. Those invoices were not part of the contract. ( 11 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .