S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision, petitioner challenges the order dated 11-5-1982 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar returning the award to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court. The impugned order reads as follows :-"heard the G. P. Since no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the award cannot be entertained by this court. Hence, return the award to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court. ". ( 2 ) THE Arbitration Tribunal after making the award filed it in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar which was received in the court on 27-4-1982. It was registered as Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 (1 ). This was returned back by the impugned order to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court. Before returning the award the petitioner was not given any chance of hearing. ( 3 ) THE impugned order is not a speaking order. From the cause title it is seen that the State of Orissa is the defendant. The capital of the State Government, the defendant is Bhubaneswar. A Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the defendant resides. In respect of the State Government, its capital is the place of its residence. Merely because, the Executive Engineer represents the State of Orissa it does not mean that the defendant resides beyond the jurisdiction of the court. However, there being no speaking order I am only assuming facts from the cause title. It is not possible to ascertain as to the reason for which the trial court held that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. ( 4 ) THIS Court has not hesitated to condemn even administrative orders affecting rights of parties where it is a non-speaking order. While returning the award clear reasons based on facts ought to have been given by the trial court. On this short ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) MR. N. C. Panigrahi the learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that in the tender call notice there is a clause that the suits and proceedings in respect of the contract would lie at Balangir. On this short ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) MR. N. C. Panigrahi the learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that in the tender call notice there is a clause that the suits and proceedings in respect of the contract would lie at Balangir. He has also submitted that after the award was returned back, the Arbitration Tribunal has filed the same at Balangir. These facts are not based on record. As I find from the order sheet the petitioner has not been given a chance to make his submissions relating to the return of the award. ( 6 ) I am satisfied that the matter requires reconsideration by the Trial Court. When the matter goes back to the trial court, it shall take into consideration all the facts placed before it and shall pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties. ( 7 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the order dated 11-5-1982 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs in the Civil Revision. Revision allowed.