JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J. This is a plaintiffs application in revision against an order of the 5th Addl. District Judge, Aligarh, dated 951975 directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to a proper court. According to the learned District Judge, Small Cause Court Judge at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the suit were as follows : The opposite party no. 2 invited tenders for the supply of metallic plates to it. The office of the Director of Census Operations, Punjab (opposite party no. 2) was situated at Chandigarh. The plaintiff submitted quotations along with a call deposit receipt of Rs.2000/ by way of security for the due performance of the contract which may be entered into between the parties. According to the plaintiff the agreement fell through and it became entitled to the refund of the securitydeposit of Rs.2,000/ made by it to the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the bargain was never concluded and no completed contract came into existence between the parties. Thus the defendant could not forfeit the amount for breach of any term of the contract. The defence delivered was that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendants for the supply of metallic plates to the defendant no. 2. It failed to supply the goods and thus committed a breach of the contract rendering the deposit to be forfeited. The defendant no. 2 accordingly forfeited the deposit of Rs.2,000/, It was further pleaded that the Civil Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to try to the suit as no part of the action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. According to the defendants the suit could, if at all, be filed' at Chandigarh. The trial court decreed the suit on the findings that there was no concluded contract between the parties and no breach had been committed by the plaintiff of the agreement hence it was entitled to a refund of the security deposited made with the defendant no. 2. It further held that the suit was cognizable at Aligarh as the cause of action for the same had arisen there, the money being refundable to the plaintiff at its place of business at Aligarh. On revision by the defendants the learned Addl. 2. It further held that the suit was cognizable at Aligarh as the cause of action for the same had arisen there, the money being refundable to the plaintiff at its place of business at Aligarh. On revision by the defendants the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the order of the trial court on the ground that the Civil Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no part of the cause of action had arisen at Aligarh. The learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that it should return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has come in revision to this court. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the deposit of Rs.2.000/was made by the plaintiff on the asking of the defendant no. 2, by way of security for the performance of a contract which may have been entered into between the parties, under a correspondence addressed to the plaintiff at Aligarh and it deposited the amount in persuance thereof in the Bank at Aligarh for being remitted to the defendant no. 2. It was further urged that the forfeiture of the securitydeposit was communicated to the plaintiff at Aligarh at its place of business. The cause of action for the suit arose by the communication of the defendant's decision to forfeit the security deposit. It accordingly arose at Aligarh and the suit was thus instituted in the court of Judge Small Causes at Aligarh. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Aligarh as the contract had been concluded at Chandigarh and the amount was also forfeited there, the suit accordingly was not cognizable by the Civil Court at Aligarh. The courts below have concurrently found that no completed contract had come into existence between the parties. A securitydeposit carries with it as implied term for its refund if it is not appropriated and the deposit becomes a debtor for the purposes of its repayment to the person entitled to receive it. The defendant no. 2, communicated its decision to forfeit the amount to the plaintiff at Aligarh. Letter dated 13th August, 1969 containing this communication is Ext. A5 addressed to the plaintiff at Aligarh. The defendant no. 2, communicated its decision to forfeit the amount to the plaintiff at Aligarh. Letter dated 13th August, 1969 containing this communication is Ext. A5 addressed to the plaintiff at Aligarh. It states that "it has been decided to forfeit your security of Rs,2,000/ deposited by you towards execution of your agreement with us". The question is whether the place of suing for the refund of the amount would be Aligarh or Chandigarh. In Sri Narain v. Jagannath and others A. I. R. 1917 All. 128. It was held that the ordinary rule is that the debtor must seek his creditor to pay him his debt and in the majority of such cases the intention of the parties always is that the money should be paid to the depositor where ever he happens to be when he demands repayment. In Union of India v. Bhagwan Industries Ltd. A. I. R. 1957 All. 799. It was held that where the deposit is made in advance there evidently always is an implied agreement that the amount would be refundable if not appropriated. The deposits becomes a debtor for the purposes of payment to the person entitled to get back the deposit, and the refund is to be made at the place where the depositor resides. In the State of U. P. and others v. Raja Ram Lal A. I. R. 1966 All. 149 it was held that a suit for the refund of the securitydeposit is to be filed at the place where the plaintiff' resides. It was observed that the common law rule that the debtor must seek the creditor applies to such a case unless there is a contract to the contrary between the parties. In Manohar Oil Mills Allahabad and another v. Bhawanidin and others 1971 A. L. J. 412. It was held that "in a claim for money the normal rules is that in the absence of any agreement as to the place of payment the courts will be enstitled to decide the controversy on the view that the parties implied that payment will be made by the debtor at the place where the creditor was carrying on his business". See also G. Venkatesha Bhat and others v. M/s. Kamlapat Moti Lal and others A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 201. See also G. Venkatesha Bhat and others v. M/s. Kamlapat Moti Lal and others A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 201. Thus a suit for refund of securitydeposit normally has to be filed at the place where the plaintiff resides, on the principle that the debtor must seek the creditor, unless there is a contract to the contrary. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Communication of the order of forfeiture having being made to the plaintiff at Aligarh his cause of action for the suit arose there. In M/s. Matanhella Brothers v. M/s. Sri Mahabir Industries Pvt. Ltd., A. I. R. 1971 Patna 91. It was held that the place where the communication of the breach of contract or its cancellation is received is a place where the suit for recovery of money under it shall lie. The cause of action or a part thereof in the instant case accordingly arose at Aligarh. It may be observed further that the parties went to trial on merits and the suit was decreed by the trial court. No prejudice was caused to the defendant by the trial of the suit at Aligarh. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "no objection as the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice". In M/s. Matanhella Brothers' case (supra) it was observed that if no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the defendants by the trail of the suit. The point of jurisdiction lost its importance. See also Raj Bahadur Singh v. Smt. Gaura 1977 R. D. 165. We are thus of the opinion that the suit was rightly tried at Aligarh. The learned Addl. District Judge erred in directing the plaint to be returned. Since the revisional court has not considered the case on merits it shall have to go back to it for disposal on merits according to law. The revision accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order of the court below dated 9.5.1975 is set aside and the case is remanded to it for decision on merits according to law. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.