SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the petitioner. The respondent Bank filed a suit, at Sirsi, against the defendant for recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn. It is not in dispute that the entire alleged transaction took place at Mundgod town, where the plaintiff Bank has a branch. The plaintiff Bank has its head Office at Sirsi and therefore, according to it, the suit could be filed at Sirsi. This plea of the plaintiff was accepted by the learned munsiff. The trial court has referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court, reported in AIR 1980 P and H 251. in the said case, State Bank of India was the defendant. Suit was filed against it at amritsar seeking injunctive reliefs regarding a Locker and a S. B. Account of the late mother of the plaintiffs, in the Gaziabad branch of the Bank. The Bank contended that, since the cause of action arose only at gaziabad, suit should have been filed in the said place and therefore, the Court at amritsar alone had no jurisdiction. This contention was negatived, because of Section 20 (a) read with the Explanation to Section 20, of the Civil Procedure Code; under section 20 (a), irrespective of the place where the cause of action arises, suit can be filed in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. By virtue of the Explanation to Section 20, corporal ion is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office. In other words, a Corporation may be sued at a place where it has a subordinate office, in case, the cause of action arises in the said place, or it may be sued at a place where it has its principal office in India. The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court referred by the trial court, therefore, governs a situation when the Corporation is the defendant and not the plaintiff. Since the cause of action arose, at Gaziabad and the principal office of the State Bank of India was not at Amritsar, the suit filed at Amritsar was held as not maintainable to the extent of State Bank of india. Since the cause of action arose, at Gaziabad and the principal office of the State Bank of India was not at Amritsar, the suit filed at Amritsar was held as not maintainable to the extent of State Bank of india. The trial Court refers to the amendment made to Section 20 in the year 1976, as enlarging the scope of Section 20. The amendment made in the year 1976, deleted the old Explanation-I. While doing so, the number given to the 2nd Explanation was also deleted; thus, in effect, the only change made was the deletion of the earlier explanation-I. I fail to understand as to how, this amendment enlarges the scope of section 20 to the extent of granting a right in a Corporation to file a suit at a place of its principal office, even though, the cause of action docs not arise in the said place, and the defendant is not a resident therein. ( 2 ) PURPOSE of the Explanation to Section 20 is to locate the residence of a Corporation for the purpose of Section 20 (a) and (b ). The said Explanation nowhere locates the cause of action as having arisen in a place where the Corporation has its principal office, for the purposes of the suit to be filed by such a Corporation. The Explanation actually, gives an option to a person, intending to sue a Corporation at the place of its principal office, or, at the place where the Corporation has a subordinate office in the latter case, the cause of action also should arise in such a place. ( 3 ) SCHEME of Section 20 is to permit the suit to be filed at the place where defendant resides or works for gain, or, at place where the cause of action for the suit arose. Its purpose is not to create a right in the plaintiff to sue at a place where he or it resides, irrespective of the place where the cause of action arises. The decision in Hakan Singh v M/s. Ganon (India) Ltd. , ( AIR 1971 SC 740 ), cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is not at all relevant to the facts of the instant case. To what extent by an agreement between parties, jurisdiction to sue or to be sued, can be confined is stated in the said decision. To what extent by an agreement between parties, jurisdiction to sue or to be sued, can be confined is stated in the said decision. Further, it was held that if a court has no jurisdiction at all, parties cannot by agreement confer a jurisdiction on such a court. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the finding of the trial court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, sice the suit is filed in a court having no jurisdiction, the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .