ORDER P. Janaki Amma, J. 1. The Defendant in a Suit for realisation of money is the revision Petitioner. The plaintiff is a firm doing business at Thripunithura. The Defendant is carrying on business on Surgical Goods and Chemicals, and has its office at Madras. On 4-4-1977 the plaintiff placed orders with the defendant for the supply of litmus paper on the basis of a sample supplied by the defendant. The Defendant supplied litmus paper. The plaintiff took delivery of the goods from Thripunithura Railway Station on the assumption that the materials supplied by (the defendant Were of the same quality as that of the sample sent by the defendant. But it was found that the article was of inferior quality. The Plaintiff therefore instituted the suit for payment of Rs. 932|- with interest. The defendant, among other things, contended that the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reliance was placed on Ext. B1 dated 28-9-1977. It was pointed out that the said invoice contained an endorsement to the effect that the transaction entered into is subject to the Madras Jurisdiction. The contention put forward is therefore that the suit should have been filed before the Madras Court. 2. The trial Court considered the question as a preliminary issue and over ruled the contention. The revision petition is preferred against the above order. 3. The Petitioner reiterated the contention that in view of Ext. B1 the Court at Madras alone has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The Plaintiff respondent on the other hand placed reliance on Ext. A1, the purchase order, Ext. A1 contains on the reverse of that document, the conditions of purchase, and condition No. 5 is that disputes, if any, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Court only. It was in view of the above condition that the trial Court held that had jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. 4. Under S.20 of the Code of Civil procedure, a Suit can be instituted either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or in the Court within whose jursdiction the cause of action arises. In as much as the articles ware delivered within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, that Court has jurisdiction to try the Suit. In as much as the articles ware delivered within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, that Court has jurisdiction to try the Suit. At the same time, since the defendant carries on business within the jurisdiction of the Madras court it can be said that the Madras Court also has jurisdiction to try the Suit. When the two courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit it is open to the parties to agree where the Suit should be filed. In the instant case, 'here is no such agreement reached. According to the plaintiff, (the goods were delivered on the basis of Ext. A1 purchase order, which contains a condition that the disputes if any should be subject to jurisdiction of Ernakulam Counts, the defendant having acted upon Ext. A1 should be deemed to have agreed to the condition. The defendant would however state that prior to issue of purchase order samples had been sent for approval and the invoices sent along with the sample contained a Stipulation that the courts at Madras have jurisdiction. The argument is that when the Plaintiff placed orders for the purchase of the articles the plaintiff was aware of the above condition and the same is binding on the plaintiff firm. Ext. B1 is not the invoice for the sample sent. The invoice for the sample on the basis of which Ext. A1 purchase order was issued has not been produced. Even assuming that the terms of Ext. B1 are binding, what is stated therein is only that the Madras Courts will have jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of the transaction. It is not stated that the Madras Courts alone are competent to entertain he suit. On the other hand, under the terms of Ext. A1 the courts at Ernakulam alone are to entertain the suits in respect of disputes arising from the transaction. The defendant, acting on the purchase order, and sending the goods based on that, should be deemed to have accepted the condition. Therefore, the filing of the suit in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, is in order. It cannot be said that the courts at Ernakulam have no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.