K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS CRP under S. 115 of the CPC, is directed against the order dated 10th Feb. 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, shimoga, in MA No. 1 of 1976 confirming the order dated 5 11-1975 passed by the learned Prl. Civil judge, Shimoga, in OS no. 104 of 19'?4. ( 2 ) ONE of the issues framed in the suit pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. It is Issue No. 1 and it is as follows: "whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ?" This issue is tried as a preliminary issue. As agreed by the parties, the issue has been decided on the basis of the documents produced by them. The trial Court has held that the court at Bhadravathi has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It has accordingly directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. This order was taken up in appeal before the district Judge, Shimoga, who has concurred with the opinion of the trial Judge and has also further held that the suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal, ( 3 ) IN this civil revision petition, as far as the finding recorded by the learned district Judge on the question of maintainability of the suit is concerned, it is submitted by Sri P. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that this question has not been argued by any of the parties and the learned District Judge has taken up the question on his own accord and has recorded a finding against the plaintiff. The correctness of this submission is not disputed by Sri C. G. Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent. Therefore, there is no difficulty in setting aside the finding of the learned District judge regarding maintainability of the suit. Even otherwise, the learned District judge ought not to have embaiked upon this question having come to the conclusion that the Court at Bhadravathi has no jurisdication to try the suit. Therefore, there is no difficulty in setting aside the finding of the learned District judge regarding maintainability of the suit. Even otherwise, the learned District judge ought not to have embaiked upon this question having come to the conclusion that the Court at Bhadravathi has no jurisdication to try the suit. ( 4 ) ON the rinding on Issue No. 1, Sri p. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the Courts below have committed an error in holding that acceptance of the offer has taken place at Bombay ; whereas according to the learned Counsel, acceptance of the offer has taken place at Bhadravathi. It is also further submitted" that even if it is held that acceptance of the offer has taken place at Bombay, having regard to the contents of Ext. D1, the contract is subject to the satisfactory performance at bhadravathi of the machinery supplied under the contract, further, 90% of the value of the machinery has been paid by bank draft sent through the Canara Bank branoh at Bhadravathi ; therefore the payment must be held to have been made at bhadravathi. Further,. according to the learned Counsel, it is established that the performance of the equipment Nupplied by the defendant is found to be unsatisfactory at Bhadravathi, as such, part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhadravathi. ( 5 ) IN the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner has specifically stated as follows : "the cause of action for this suit has arisen at bhadravathi within the jurisdication of this Hon'ble Court as the defendant has drawn the aforesaid amount at Bhadravathi canara Bank, Bhadravathi on 10-9-1972". It is also further stated in para 4 of the plaint that it has called for tenders for the supply of the equipment in question and the defendant has sent its quotation and the petitioner has requested the respondent to send the quotation in full indicating the complete specification with catalogue, the dimensions of the pump unit along with price etc. Pursuant to that, the defendant has sent the quotation No. PE G 72-2156 dated 27 6 1972 and the plaintiff after observing necessary formalities in that regard has placed the order for the supply of the machinery. Pursuant to that, the defendant has sent the quotation No. PE G 72-2156 dated 27 6 1972 and the plaintiff after observing necessary formalities in that regard has placed the order for the supply of the machinery. In the written statement, the defendant respondent has taken a specific stand that no pare of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhadravathi, The order for supply of the machinery was placed at bombay and the goods were supplied at bombay and the value of the goods paid at bombay, ( 6 ) THIS is a case in which the quotations have been called for by the plaintiff- petitioner for supply of certain machineries from manufacturers. Pursuant to that invitation, the defendant has submitted its quotations. Certain other conditions were suggested by the plaintiff as per the telex message sent by it, on 1-8-1972. This message is produced as Ext. D3, which is as follows:"branch Manager, Bombay. With reference to your MSG No. 956 of date PL pass on the following MSG to M/s Pressweld Engineers, 20, Lokamanya Tilak Road, 2nd Floor, K. Lekhraj Building, Bombay 3 pl reference your quotation dated 27 6-1972 for hydraulic pumps and your subsequent letter dated 30 6-1972. We have the pleasure to order for one No. high pressure hydraulic pump capable to discharge 192 ltrs. per minute against pressure of 140 kg. per cm. sq. which can be operated by a motor of 1,440 rpm and 45 HP and the performance guarantee for one year at Rs. 14,400 exyour works taxes etc. Please accept 90% payment against despatch documents through bank and 10% after satisfactory performance of the equipment. You may despatch by lorry through our approved transporters i. e. , M/s. Road transport Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay with instructions to give door delivery and you may route the documents through Bank. Please convey your concufrence to enable us place order accordingly. This is only a trial order and purchase of balance requirement depends upon the performance of the equipment. Purchase Manager NS, MYSIRON sd. Purchase Manager, NS". August 1, 1972 pursuant to Ext. D3, the defendant has sent a reply dated 4th August 1972 as per"ext. D2 which reads as follows : pe G : 72 : 2708 4th August, 1972 the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd. , post Box No. 23, Bhadravathl (S, Rly ). Purchase Manager NS, MYSIRON sd. Purchase Manager, NS". August 1, 1972 pursuant to Ext. D3, the defendant has sent a reply dated 4th August 1972 as per"ext. D2 which reads as follows : pe G : 72 : 2708 4th August, 1972 the Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd. , post Box No. 23, Bhadravathl (S, Rly ). Dear Sirs, ref:' Your telex message copy dated 1-2-1972. Sub: Hydraulic pump. We thankfully acknowledge receipt of your above copy and pleased to note that you have considered our quotation dated 27-6-1972 for high pressure hydraulic pump capable to discharge 192 1 p. m. against the pressure of 140 kg/cm 2 @ rs. 14,400 each ex-our works. We are also aggreable to your terms of payment i. e. , 90% against despatch documents through Bank and balance 10% immediately after satisfactory performance of the equipment or within 45 days from the date of despatch which- ever earlier. We shall arrange to despatch the above pump which is available ex stock through M/s. Road Transport Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay with the instructions to give you door delivery no sooner you retire the documents from the Bank. We hope the above confirmation will enable you to release your order without any further delay and immediately on receipt of your order we shall arrange to despatch the above pump which will definitely satisfy you in all respect and we are sure that your this trial order will force you to repeat your future orders with us again and again. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for Pressweld Engineers, sd. Gilani. M. E. "thereafter, as it is referred to in Exi. P3, the plaintiff has placed the order bearing No. NS 2721 dated 10-8-1972 (Ext. D1) for supply of the equipment in question. Ext. Dl is sent by registered post from Bhadravathi. Thus, even the modified quotation is accepted by the plaintiff at bhadravathi by sending the order for supply of equipment from Bhadravathi as per Ext. Dl. The two conditions mentioned in Ext. D1 are as follows : "payment: 90% payment against despatch documents through bank and 10% after receipt, inspection and satisfactory performance of the equipment. Guarantee : The equipment is guaranteed by you for the satisfactory performance for one year". Dl. The two conditions mentioned in Ext. D1 are as follows : "payment: 90% payment against despatch documents through bank and 10% after receipt, inspection and satisfactory performance of the equipment. Guarantee : The equipment is guaranteed by you for the satisfactory performance for one year". Accordingly, the defendant has despatched the equipment, the delivery of which has been taken by the plaintiff at bhadravathi and 90% of the value of the equipment has also been paid to the defendant by way of Bank draft sent through the Canara Bank Branch at Bhadravathi. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, as the performance of the equipment was found to be unsatisfactory, the plaintiff-petitioner demanded the refund of the amount from the defendant- respondent, and as the amount was not refunded, the suit in question came to be filed in the Court at Bhadravathi, for recovery of the amount paid to the respondent. ( 8 ) THE acceptance of the offer i. e. , the quotations submitted by the defendant had taken place at Bhadravathi only. Unless the quotations submitted by the respondent were accepted, there was no question of placing the order as per Ext. D1, for supply of the equipment. It was also not disputed that supply of the equipment by the defendant was subject to performance guarantee which had to take place at bhadravathi only. Thus, part of the contract was required to be performed at bhadravathi because the supply of the equipment was subject to the guarantee of satisfactory performance of the equipment at Bhadravathi. Therefore, when the equipment was installed at Bhadravathi, the performance of it was to be observed at Bhadravathi. According to the plaintiff, the performance was not upto the mark, therefore, they demanded the refund of the amount paid pursuant to the contract. When the contract itself was subject to performance guarantee and that performance was to take place at Bhadravathi, it was not at all possible to say, rather it was too much on the part of the Courts below and the defendant respondent to say, that no part of the performance of the contract had taken place at Bhadravathi. Both the Courts below have failed to notice this aspect of the matter. ( 9 ) THE Courts below have also failed to notice that undisputedly, the amount was paid by the plaintiff by way of Bank draft sent through the Canara Bank at Bhadravathi. Both the Courts below have failed to notice this aspect of the matter. ( 9 ) THE Courts below have also failed to notice that undisputedly, the amount was paid by the plaintiff by way of Bank draft sent through the Canara Bank at Bhadravathi. In the case of payment by negotia ble instrument, the payment takes place immediately at the place where it is delivered or at the place from where it is sent. In the instant case, the Bank draft was sent to the defendant from Bhadravathi which amounted to payment at Bhadravathi. Consequently, payment of the amount being an integral part of the performance of the contract and that having taken place within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhadravathi, the part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhadravathi. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, it is not necessary to advert to some of the decisions referred to in the order of the learned district Judge. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The orders of both the Courts below are set aside and it is held that the Court at Bhadravathi has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff. ( 11 ) THE case is remitted to the trial court with a direction to try the other issues on merits. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent defendant that the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the performance of the equipment has not been satisfactory, is disputed by the defendant; therefore, satisfactory or otherwise of the performance of the equipment cannot be taken as a ground for deciding the question as to whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhadravathi. The fact that the respondent defendant has denied the case that is set up by the plaintiff regarding performance of the equipment, does not make any difference because the performance of the equipment has to take place at Bhadravathi only. The fact that the respondent defendant has denied the case that is set up by the plaintiff regarding performance of the equipment, does not make any difference because the performance of the equipment has to take place at Bhadravathi only. If it is held in the suit that the performance of the equipment has not been proved to be unsatisfactory, it may affect the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff, but it cannot affect the decision on the question as to whether the Court at Bhadravathi has got jurisdiction to try the suit. --- *** --- .