JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal, J. These two civil revision applications arise out of a common order and have been heard together and therefore, this Judgment will govern both of them. These applications, which are by the defendants of each case, were referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this court on account of the importance of the question falling for decision. The Question is as to whether the assignment of a debt on the basis of a promissory note or money bond can be made a part of the cause of action within the meaning of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. According to the case of the common plaintiff, opposite party one Ram Krishna Gour, resident of Birhana Road in the town of Kanpur advanced a sum of Rs. 1250/- on 25.7.1967 to the petitioners of Civil Revision no.254 of 1976 (R) on the basis of a promissory note in his favour and he also advanced a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioners of Civil Revision no. 256 of 1976 (R) on the basis of money bond. Ram Krishna Gour assigned the aforesaid promissory note and the money bond in favour of the plaintiff in September 1968 at Giridih. The plaintiff on the basis of the assignments within the territorial Jurisdiction of the Money suit nos. 317 of 1969 and 215 of 1969 for realisation of the said amounts with interest, against the petitioners of Civil Revision Nos. 254 of 1975 and 255 of 1976 respectively. The petitioners after filing their written statements in the respective suits, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif on the ground that the alleged assignment of the promissory note and money bond at Giridih did not constitute any part of the cause of action to the plaintiff and therefore the suits were not maintainable in the court. The learned Additional Munsif by the impugned order overruled the objection of the petitioners on the ground that part of the cause of action also accrues where an assignment is made and inasmuch as the assignment was made within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction, the suits were maintainable. The defendant petitioners have accordingly filed the present applications as aforesaid. 3. The fact that a promissory note or money bond is a negotiable instrument cannot be disputed. The defendant petitioners have accordingly filed the present applications as aforesaid. 3. The fact that a promissory note or money bond is a negotiable instrument cannot be disputed. It is also an actionable claim within the meaning of section 130 of the transfer of Property Act, and, therefore, is transferable under this provision as well. Section 48 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, also makes negotiation of a promissory note etc. permissible by the holder by endorsement and delivery thereof. A transferee of an actionable claim therefore is entitled to sue or institute proceedings for the claim in his own name even without obtaining the transferees consent to such suits or proceedings and without making him a party thereto. It is no doubt true that negotiations is not synonymous with assignment and on endorsement of a negotiable instrument is not the only means by which it can be transferred. A bill of exchange or a promissory note, like any other chooses in action may be transferred by assignment. The transferee in either event becomes a holder within the meaning of section 8 of the Negotiable Instrument comes entitled to recover the under the note. 4. Although there does not appear that this question has fallen for consideration before this Court, there is a string of authorities of various other High Courts in India on this question in favour of the view that an assignment of debt is itself a part of the cause of action and therefore a suit can be brought in the court within whole jurisdiction the assignment has been made. I shall presently refer to them. The decisions are based upon the intention of the expression 'cause of action' which although has not been defined in the Code has been the subject matter of interpretation in a very large number of cases. 5. Section 10 the Code enacts the role as to the forum in all such cases not falling within the limitation of section 15 to 19 as is made clear by the words subject to the limitations aforesaid "Clause (c) of this section permits a suit, inter alia to be instituted where 'the cause of action, wholly or in part arises and precisely it means the whole bundle of material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to succeed in the suit. In the cases of assignment of debt; therefore, the plaintiff will be bound to prove that the debt was assigned in his favour by the assignor and as such the assignment is a part of the cause of action. If such assignment is made within the jurisdiction of a court that court would be competent to entertain and decide a suit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that if this meaning is given to the expression 'cause of action' a creditor may assign a debt to harass a debtor. It was also contended that the underlying principles determine the 'place of suing was to secure that justice might be brought as near as possible to every man's hearth and home and that the defendant should not be put to the trouble and expense of traveling long distance in order to defend himself in cases in which he may be involved. In support of this contention reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Ramkumar and others P. Gulab Chand Puranmal, where it was observed by a learned Single Judge that if an assignment were to be treated as forming part of a cause of action for the purpose of giving jurisdiction the defendant would be compelled to defend the suit at the choice of the plaintiff and this would cut at the basic principle underlying section 20 of the Code. At one stage of the argument we were impressed by the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, but on examining the matter more critically and closely, particularly in view of the overwhelming decisions of the majority of the Judges in India, on this question I would reject this contention. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court itself is in conflict with a Bench decision of that very Court in the case of Abdul Gafoor v. Sensmal and other. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court itself is in conflict with a Bench decision of that very Court in the case of Abdul Gafoor v. Sensmal and other. The learned single Judge has, however declined to follow the above Bench decision which was apparently binding on him, on the ground that an earlier Bench decision of that Court in the case of Mishrimal V. Moda to which he was a party had expressed contrary view I.L.R. (1951) 1 Rajasthan 662 could not be made available to us, but on reference to A.I.R. 1955 Rajasthan 53, I find that this case had referred to the 1951 Rajasthan’s case and after referring to the same it was observed that this question was "left undecided at that time". 7. S.R. Das J., in the case of Madanlal Jalan V. Madanlal and others, confronted with a similar situation after consideration of a large number of authorities observed that “an assignment must be regarded as a part and indeed a very important part of the cause of action” and if an assignee proves the assignment be was entitled to a judgment in his favour. 8. A learned single Judge of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Gopal Ghupiamal V. T.G.S. Narayanan and another, also observed that where the right of the plaintiff depends upon the assignment of a promissory note in his favour, the assignment would constitute part of the cause of action and the court within whose jurisdiction the assignment took place would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the promissory note. 9. A division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. D.K. Dass Vidhi, also took the same view. 10. From a scrutiny of the above authorities and examining the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the Transfer of Property Act, mentioned above, it is not possible to take a view different from the trial court. No authority, except a single Judge decision of the Rajasthan High Court (supra) has been cited on behalf of the petitioners where a contrary view was taken. It may well be that in some given case the assignment may be simply to harass a debtor but as observed in Abdul Gaffar's case (Supra) such a case if any, would be very rare. It may well be that in some given case the assignment may be simply to harass a debtor but as observed in Abdul Gaffar's case (Supra) such a case if any, would be very rare. Moreover even if there be some such case it is for the legislative to think about the remedy". 11. In the result for the reasons given above, I must hold that the trial court has got the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the suits are accordingly maintainable at Giridih. Both the applications accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs. S. Ali Ahmad, J. I agree. Applications dismissed.