JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Defendant is the Petitioner against an order rejecting his petition under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction of the court as a preliminary issue. The suit was brought for rendition of accounts on the plea that a partnership had been entered into between the Parties at Cuttack but the business was carried on at Dhenkanal by the Defendant who was the managing partner and had been in over-all management of the business with the books of accounts remaining in his custody, but due to his mismanagement and misappropriation, the business foundered and ultimately when the Defendant approached the Plaintiff at Cuttack for advancement of further contribution the request was turned down by the Plaintiff. The firm was dissolved on that day and the Defendant also agreed to render accounts, but since he did not comply with the same, the suit was filed. 2. The Defendant in his written statement admitted the partnership but contended that there was no dissolution of the same and that there had never been any demand for rendition of accounts. It was pleaded that there was a talk of arbitration of the disputes between the parties and on such plea prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Defendant also filed the petition under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC to decide the question of jurisdiction of the court at Cuttack to entertain the suit since it was his case that the business was carried on at Dhenkanal, the accounts were liable to be rendered only there and could not be asked for to be rendered at Cuttack through the suit. 3. The learned Munsif rejected the petition being of the view that the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court is a mixed question of law and fact since he held that there was no cogent and unimpeachable material available to show whether the partnership had been entered into at Cuttack or at Dhenkanal and hence the issue could not be tried as a preliminary one. 4. The approach of the learned Munsif, is misdirected. There is no dispute between the parties regarding execution of the partnership deed and hence whether the partnership was entered into at Cuttack or at Dhankanal is not relevant. The cause of action for the suit was demand for accounts and non-rendering of the same by the Defendant. 4. The approach of the learned Munsif, is misdirected. There is no dispute between the parties regarding execution of the partnership deed and hence whether the partnership was entered into at Cuttack or at Dhankanal is not relevant. The cause of action for the suit was demand for accounts and non-rendering of the same by the Defendant. Whether the Partnership, as alleged in the plaint, was dissolved in December 1976 or not is also not crucial to the question since even without dissolution of the partnership, a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable. The question is as to where the suit for rendition of accounts lies. 5. A suit is entitled to be instituted at a place where the cause of action for the same either wholly or partly arises. It is well settled that a suit for accounts in a partnership lies at the place where the business is carried on, the books of accounts are kept and where the accounts are to be rendered. The matter was clinched in a similar case by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Luckmee Chand and Ors. v. Zorawur Mull and Ors. 8 MIA 291 where a partnership had been entered into at a different place than where the business was being carried on and the books of accounts were kept, and the suit for balance of the dues struck was brought at the place of business. Objection being taken to the maintainability of the suit on the contention that the suit should have been instituted at the place where the contract had been entered into, their Lordship negatived the same by answering the question as follows: Now, where can it be said that the cause of action, supposing it exists for that balance, properly arose? Muttra was, undoubtedly, the central place of business; at Muttra the partnership books were kept; at Muttra the partners would have recourse to those books for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the transactions between them; and if, in the result, a balance was due to the Appellants, Muttra would be the place where the payment of that balance would have to be made. It, therefore, appears clear to their Lordships that if there is a cause of action arising out of the balance resulting from these partnership transactions, that cause of action arose at Muttra. It, therefore, appears clear to their Lordships that if there is a cause of action arising out of the balance resulting from these partnership transactions, that cause of action arose at Muttra. In it thus clear that so far as a suit for rendition of accounts is concerned, the cause of action is taken to have arisen at the place where the business is carried on. 6. In the instant case, the very partnership deed relied on by the Plaintiff shows that the office of the partnership was at Dhenkanal and the books of accounts were maintained and kept in the office premises of the partnership. Clause (6) of the partnership deed also shows that on 31st March each year, an account shall be taken of all the assets and liabilities of the partnership and a balance sheet and profit and loss account shall be prepared, copies of which shall be furnished to all partners who shall be bound by the same unless some manifest error is discovered within three months, etc. It thus appears that materials were available on record to reach a decision on the issue and hence the conclusion of the learned Munsif that the issue being a mixed question of law and fact was not available for decision as a preliminary point is not correct. The issue could be decided without adducing any evidence and the decision thereon would dispose of a matter relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. Under the circumstances, it is proper that the issue be decided at the first place. 7. In the circumstances, the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Munsif for decision on the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary point. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. The lower court records be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed