S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This is a appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) C.P.C. against the judgment of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated 2nd November, 1971 holding that the court of Additional District Judge No.l, Jaipur City had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the court and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. 2. Plaintiff M/s. Hotchand Mool Chand is a registered partnership firm and are registered as B Class Contractor. Tenders for the construction of Dantiwara Irrigation Project in Jawai Canal Project (Eirenpura Road) were invited. The plaintiff offered its tenders and the same were accepted and the plaintiff executed the work within time, in terms with the contract, but since the plaintiff had to incur extra cost not covered by the terms of tender in labour and therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for a sum of Rs. 74,418.50, in the court of District Judge, Jaipur- 3. The defendants filed their written statement and one of the Issues framed was Issue No. 12 which runs as under:- "Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this Court ?" 4. Since this was a legal issue, the parties requested that this issue may be decided before they were asked to lead evidence. 5. The learned Additional District Judge No 1, in which court the case was transferred by the District Judge, after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the Addl District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of that court and it was directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. 6. It is against this judgment/order that the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Pratap Chandra Biswas vs. Union of India (1) wherein the Chief Justice Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, as he then was, sitting in division bench held that Section 20 C.P.C. provides that the suit will be instituted at a place where the defendant carries on business. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Pratap Chandra Biswas vs. Union of India (1) wherein the Chief Justice Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, as he then was, sitting in division bench held that Section 20 C.P.C. provides that the suit will be instituted at a place where the defendant carries on business. The State is not exempted from the operation of this Section and that Section 20 C.P.C. would apply where the defendant is Government or the State. This judgment was relied upon by the Assam High Court in another case which came up for decision before the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ladulal Jain (2) and the Supreme Court approved the decision of Assam High Court reported in AIR 1956 Assam 85 (supra) and observed that the principle behind the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 C.P.C. is that the suit be instituted at a place where the defendant is able to defend the suit without undue trouble. This decision of the Supreme Court was relied on by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manik Lal Mittal Vs. Union of India (3) and also by the Calcutta High Court in Great Eastern Shipping Co. V. Union of India (4). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the State of Maharashtra Vs. Sarvodaya Industries (5) and M/s. Republic Medico Surgical Co. Vs. Union of India (6) and has submitted that the suit can be brought either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where the breach was committed and where the cause of action arose to the plaintiff. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and authorities cited at the bar. The case reported in AIR 1975 Bombay 197 (supra) is quite distinguishable. That was a case in which plaintiff carried on his business of manufacturing Poha from Dhan in Akola District. He had entered into an agreement with M/s Ghula Brothers of Gondia for purchase of Poha and the Collector, Akola, had given a licence to import Dhan but lateron, the import of Dhan was affected and the plaintiff suffered losses and therefore, filed a suit for recovery of losses in the business, in the court of Akola. 10. He had entered into an agreement with M/s Ghula Brothers of Gondia for purchase of Poha and the Collector, Akola, had given a licence to import Dhan but lateron, the import of Dhan was affected and the plaintiff suffered losses and therefore, filed a suit for recovery of losses in the business, in the court of Akola. 10. The trial court held that the cause of action for the purpose of damages would arise only on the proof of loss and the place where the loss is suffered i.e. place of business and it held that the suit is governed by Section 19 of the C.P.C. and the State cannot be treated as residing within the limitation of Akola Court. It was held that the Court at Akola had jurisdiction to try the suit. 11. High Court in revision petition, did not interfere with the findings of the trial court and held that though the complaint of the plaintiff was against the action by defendant No. 2 which was not within the limits of Court at Akola, still it held that the suit was properly laid in court of Akola u/s 19 C.P.C. as the plaintiff had suffered losses on account of wrong done in Akola. Thus facts are quite distinguishable and as such, this case is of no help to the respondents. 12. Another case cited by the respondents of the Karnataka High Court (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, it was held that the suit for breach of contract can be brought either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where the breach was committed. The case of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Supra) is very close to the facts of the present case, in that case, the Western Railway entered into a contract with the plaintiff firm for conveyance of parcel and goods from Dhamnod to Mhow and back and later on from Dhamnod to Indore and back. The suit was filed at Indore. The defendant raised an objection that as the contract between the parties had taken place in Bombay and the goods were to be picked up at Dhamnod and the mere fact that the plaintiff carried the goods from Indore Station to Dhamnod and from Dhamnod to Indore. Indore could not be called the place of business. The defendant raised an objection that as the contract between the parties had taken place in Bombay and the goods were to be picked up at Dhamnod and the mere fact that the plaintiff carried the goods from Indore Station to Dhamnod and from Dhamnod to Indore. Indore could not be called the place of business. It was held by the High Court in that case that since the suit was against the Union of India as represented by the Western Railway Administration, Indore was considered to be a place where the Union of India was represented by Western Railway Administration as it could be said to carry on business at Indore and relying on the explanation II at the foot of Section 20 C.P.C., it was held that the suit was maintainable at Indore. In the present case also, the contract provided that the Chief Engineer will have control in the matter and that his decision will be final in all matters regarding the execution of the contract and the Chief Engineer has admittedly his office at Jaipur, & the suit is against both State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, whose office is also in Jaipur and as also of Chief Engineer. The main object of Section 20 C.P.C. is that the defendant should be able to defend the suit without undue trouble and as the State of Rajasthan than can fully defend the suit without undue trouble at Jaipur, it cannot be said that the suit does not lie in Jaipur u/s 20 C.P.C. I am fortified in my view in this regard by the judgment of the Assam High Court which has been approved by the Supreme Court and also the case reported in AIR 1971 Cal 150 . 13. In the result, appeal is allowed, the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur dated 2nd November, 1971 is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed further with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. Since the suit had been filed in the year 1966, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible. The file of the trial court may be sent at an early date. There will be no order as to cost.