JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—One of the issues directed to be tried as a preliminary one vide order dated October 3, 1988 pertains to as to "whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit." 2. The plaintiff-Corporation, a public limited company with the approval of the defendant, but subject to the former coverage under the Comprehensive Risks Policy (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Policy) in the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs provided cash credit limit facility to a firm of Ludhiana in the year 1977. The said firm pursuant to agreements entered into with various firms in Nigeria? had exported bicycle parts to the latter. 3. As per the allegations of the plaintiff-Corporation, the defendants were liable to losses vis-a-vis the aforesaid supply of bicycle parts under certain terms of the policy referred to above to the extent of 90% thereof, whereas defendants admitted their liability and consequently paid the sum towards the liquidation of the losses to the extent of 68% only. The suit pertains to the recovery of the remaining outstanding amount towards the aforesaid losses suffered by the plaintiff-Corporation which the defendant has denied. The latter has also contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections with respect to limitation, estoppel and that of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Admittedly, under the terms of the policy, all payments were to be paid to the defendants at their Head Office, that is, Bombay. How ever, payments towards the losses to the extent of 60% had been made by the defendants on various dates, that is, December 16, 1982, December 27,1982, January 20, 1983, October 7, 1983, October 7, 1983, February 20, 1984 through demand drafts in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation issued at Bombay, who encashed it at Shimla. According to the plaintiff- Corporation, such payments tantamounts to cause of action having arisen in part giving territorial jurisdiction to this Court to take cognizance of the suit, whereas according to the defendants, the aforesaid payment were made at the request of the plaintiff-Corporation and did not, in any manner, give any jurisdiction to this Court to adjudicate upon the instant lis. 5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. The execution of the aforesaid Policy outside Shimla has been admitted even by the plaintiff-Corporation. 5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. The execution of the aforesaid Policy outside Shimla has been admitted even by the plaintiff-Corporation. Even the factum of paymente through demand drafts referred to above by the defendants to the plaintiff-Corporation which were encashed at Shimla, are also not in dispute. The parties are also not at controversy regarding the fact that there is no specific agreement referring to the territorial jurisdiction pertaining to the dispute arising out of the abovesaid transaction entered into between the parties. The factum of the contract having been entered into at Bombay and the defendant carrying on its business at that place is also not disputed. Further the liability of the plaintiff-Corporation referred to as Exporter in the aforesaid policy to pay policy fee under Clause 9 and premium of the policy under Clause 10 is also not at controversy. In view of this admitted position, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and I have also carefully gone through the record. 6. It is well-settled that a suit is always based on a cause of action having accrued to the plaintiff. "Cause of action’ means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts taken with the law applicable gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. Also, if the contract is entered at a particular place or is to be performed at the named place other than the place where the contract was entered into or where the money was agreed to be payable, the suit can be filed at any such policy. 7. In the instant case, the defendants are disputing the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of Clause 17 of the policy where-under all payments were agreed to be made by the plaintiff-Corporation to the defendant at the latters headquarters, that is to say, at Bombay. Clause 17 of the policy though pertains in the rate of exchange, but it lays down as under:— "17. Clause 17 of the policy though pertains in the rate of exchange, but it lays down as under:— "17. Rate of Exchange.—All payments under this policy shall be made in Indian Rupee at the Head Office of the Corporation and for the purpose of payment of premium and losses, the gross invoice value of Shipments invoiced in a foreign currency shall be converted into Indian Rupee at the Bank buying rate of exchange at Bombay on the date of relative shipment: Provided that, if devaluation of the currency in which the buyer has to pay takes place before the claim is paid, the amount claimed in Indian currency shall be based on the devalued rate. 8. As observed above, this clause pertains to the payments to be made only and it does not pertain to the forum of territorial jurisdiction regarding visa-vis the dispute arising out of the contract entered into between the parties in the instant case. "Payments to be made" may flow from the admitted liability or a dispute arising in between the parties to the contract and ultimate adjudication thereof. Thus, to my mind, Clause 17 does not refer to any forum where the suit is required to be filed under tbe contract. In other words, in the absence of any agreement pertaining to the forum regarding the adjudication of the dispute arising in between the parties, the territorial jurisdiction of a court has to be judged in accordance with section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enunciates :— "20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction— (a) ……….. (b) ……………….. (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." 9. Judging the facts of the instant case with the touch-stone of this settled principles, the payments made by the defendants through Demand Drafts in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation encashable in the State Bank of India at Shimla, who acted as defendants agent, gives rise to a cause of action in part and covered by sub-section (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to above. It is to be noted that the factum of the aforesaid payments having been made at the special request of the plaintiffs-Corporation as contended by the defendants, has been controverted equally by the plaintiff-Corporation in the form of evidence adduced by way of affidavits. Thus, in the absence of any positive evidence to that effect, it cannot be assumed that the aforesaid payments had been made at the special request of the plaintiff- Corporation. Undoubtedly, the court at Bombay where the payments were agreed to be made as per Clause 17 of the policy, had also jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Apart from the abovesaid fact, the payment of the policy fee and the premium by the Exporter, that is, plaintiff-Corporation from Shimla towards the policy referred to above, also forms a cause of action in part. Thus, from whatsoever angle, the facts of the instant case are viewed, cause of action in part is proved to have arisen at Shimla and thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the instant suit. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly. 10. The case be now listed on a date to be fixed by the Registry for evidence of the plaintiff. Order accordingly.