S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present Appeal raises a short question of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and by this appeal he challenges the order whereby the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, directed return of the Plaint for presentation before the proper forum upon a finding that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff before that court for realisation of a sum of Rs. 11,59,875/- from defendant No. 1 being the half share of the ex-gratia payment made by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India on account of the East Pakistan properties, owned by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 jointly, and since taken possession of by the East Pakistan government. The plaintiff's allegation was that the plaintiff executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 on the strength of which the latter obtained payment of the said half share from the Custodian and made part payment, in the guise of loan to be adjusted against the dues of the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 90,000/ -only at Srirampore and did not thereafter hand over the balance of the half share of the plaintiff which as plaintiff's attorney the defendant No. 1 was under an obligation to hand over at Srirampore but misappropriated the same for his own benefit without the knowledge of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) IN the said suit since the defendant raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction, the court entertained the same and framed an issue, being Issue No. 2, which the court decided by the impugned order as a preliminary issue. ( 4 ) FOR the purpose of deciding the propriety of the impugned judgment four sections are relevant. Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 49 of the Indian Contract Act and the learned Advocates representing the two contesting parties have based their submissions in jurisdiction or absence thereof for the impugned order by placing their own interpretations on the said sections. Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 49 of the Indian Contract Act and the learned Advocates representing the two contesting parties have based their submissions in jurisdiction or absence thereof for the impugned order by placing their own interpretations on the said sections. Section 49 of the Contract Act lays down that in case place for performance of a promisee is not fixed not there is provision for any application by the promisee it is the duty of the promisor to apply to the promisee to appoint a reasonable place for the performance of the promise and to perform it at such place. We have been asked, in this context, to take into consideration the applicability of a rule of Common Law that the debtor must seek out his creditor. Section 19 deals with the forum for suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables whereas section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with suits which do not specifically attract the provisions of sections 15 to 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) FROM the submissions made, we feel that in the facts of the present case the first step should be to find out, upon a construction of the plaint, as to which of the aforesaid provisions applies. In paragraph 13 of the categorical allegation of the plaintiff is that "defendant No. 1 is the attorney of the plaintiff by virtue of a general power of attorney granted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 who was entrusted by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India with half share of the proceeds the ex-gratia payment of the sum of Rs. 23,19,7501- and the said defendant no. 1 as attorney of the plaintiff is to hand-over the half share of dues to the plaintiff at Srirampore. " Then in paragraph 17 it is pleaded, "that the plaintiff is thus entitled to his half share of the amount out of the ex-gratia payment paid by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as stated aforesaid. And lastly, in paragraph 19 the cause of action of the suit is pleaded to have arisen at the residential address of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Srirampore Court. The prayers clearly and unequivocally show that the suit is a pure and simple money suit. And lastly, in paragraph 19 the cause of action of the suit is pleaded to have arisen at the residential address of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Srirampore Court. The prayers clearly and unequivocally show that the suit is a pure and simple money suit. On the above pleadings the cause of action for the suit must be held to have arisen, if not in whole, at least in part, within the jurisdiction of the Srirampore Court and accordingly section 20 sub-clause (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure straightaway applies. The contention of Mr. Bakshi that section 19 is attracted we are not in a position to accept as we have already indicated the nature of the suit is different. This construction of the plaint is justified by the ratio of the Privy Council decision in the case of Soniram Jeetmull and R. D. Tata and Co. reported in IA 265 which was followed in the case of State of Punjab v. A. K. Naha (Eng.) Ltd. reported in AIR 1964, Cal. 418. The approach adopted by the trial court in construing the plaint is a wrong approach and is vitiated by overlooking of relevant parts thereof as also the ratio of the above two decisions. We are, therefore, unable to subscribe to the view ultimately taken by the learned trial Judge. ( 6 ) THE appeal, therefore, must succeed. We set aside the judgment under appeal and direct the trial Court to entertain the plaint and proceed with the suit according to law. Since we feel it is just and proper, we further direct that hearing of the suit should be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to the Court below. In the facts of the case each party will bear his own costs. S. Mitra, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.