Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's suit in the trial Court was that on 26-5-1970, the defendant through their broker Kanhiyalal of Vidisha agreed to sell 225 quintals of gram at the rate of Rs. 97.50 per quintal. This offer for sale was accepted by the plaintiff at Shyamgarh on telephone. As instructed by the plaintiff, the gram was dispatched to a party at Bombay and the relevant papers were sent to the plaintiff at Shayamgarh. As the goods supplied by the defendants were of inferior quality, the defendant No.2 came to Shyamgarh and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the damages incurred by the plaintiff. The remaining amount of damages incurred by the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 4549.07 was not paid by the defendants. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the said amount with interest in the present suit. The defendants contested the claim made by the plaintiff and alleged that the contract was entered into at Mungawali, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court, that the defendants have already instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2.000 paid by them in the Court of the Civil Judge Class II, Mungawali and till the decision of that suit, the trial of the present suit instituted by the plaintiff be stayed. On these pleadings a number of issues Were raised, two of which were as under :- Issue No.9. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction as the contract was entered into at Mungawali ? Issue No. 10. Whether the defendants have filed a suit for the refund of Rs. 2,000 prior to the institution of this suit? If so, what is its effect ? 2. By the impungned order, the learned trial Judge found that he had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit instituted by the defendants at Mungawali had no legal effect on the suit instituted by the plaintiff. The aforesaid findings are challenged by the present revision application. Held: The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether in view of the allegations made in the plaint, the transaction for the sale between the parties was completed by acceptance on telephone at Shyamgarh, if so whether the Court having local jurisdisdiction at Shyamgarh will or will not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. Held: The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether in view of the allegations made in the plaint, the transaction for the sale between the parties was completed by acceptance on telephone at Shyamgarh, if so whether the Court having local jurisdisdiction at Shyamgarh will or will not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. If the said allegations made in the, plaint are the basis on which the suit was filed in the Mandsaur Court, then certainly prima facie the Mandsaur Court will have jurisdiction. The trial Court has after hearing the evidence of the parties found it as a fact that the offer made by the defendants was accepted by the plaintiff at Shyamgarh on telephone. When that was so, the Court at Mandsaur having local jurisdiction of Shyamgrah in respect of the subject matter of the suit will have jurisdiction to try the suit, in this connection. I may refer to the decision of this Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Dineshchandra, 1959 JLJ 281 . In this case the offer was made from Ramganj on telephone to a party at Ratlam and on that ground it was held that Ratlam Court had jurisdiction. The facts of this case are also similar to the facts of Kanhaiyalal's case (supra) and once it is found that acceptance of the offer made by the defendants on telephone from Mungawali was made to the plaintiff at Shyamgarh cause of action for the present suit shall also be deemed to be arising at Shyamgarh. Consequently, the trial Court which has local jurisdiction of Shyamgarh over the subject matter of suit shall be the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, apart from the view taken by the learned trial Court I, for the reasons given above, hold that the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the plaintiff. 3. The second contention of the applicant is that since the defendants have instituted a suit for the refund of Rs. 2,000 in the Mungawali Court, the trial of the present suit should have been stayed. Reliance for this contention was placed on section-10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion this section would not apply as the claim made in the present suit is for Rs. 6381.07 and the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court at Mungawali is 5,000. Reliance for this contention was placed on section-10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion this section would not apply as the claim made in the present suit is for Rs. 6381.07 and the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court at Mungawali is 5,000. The Mungawali Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit instituted by the plaintiff in this case. Section 10, therefore, cannot help the applicants. In view of this the trial of the present suit cannot be stayed as prayed. 1959 JLJ 281 , relied on. Revision dismissed.