JUDGMENT R.K. Varma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff bank against the order dated September 11, 1989, passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Shajapur, in Civil Suit No. 1B of 1986, whereby the learned lower court after trial of the suit, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit and as such ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff for its representation in a court competent to try the suit. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows : The plaintiff bank filed the instant suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,751.20 due on the advance of loan to the defendant. The defendant has contested the suit and filed written statement and raised a contention, inter alia, that the learned lower court has no jurisdiction to try the suit since the property mortgaged as security for loan is situate in Rajgarh district and not in Shajapur District. The learned lower court framed an issue on the question of jurisdiction and other issues on the merits. After trial of the suit, the learned lower court, on the basis of evidence adduced in the case, held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff by the impugned order for its representation in a competent court having jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff-bank has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint to submit that part of the cause of action does arise at Shajapur and as such the learned lower court of Shajapur had the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. 5. In para 10 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the defendant had executed the documents relating to the loan in favour of the plaintiff bank in Shajapur town and that the amount of loan was payable at Shajapur. 5. In para 10 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the defendant had executed the documents relating to the loan in favour of the plaintiff bank in Shajapur town and that the amount of loan was payable at Shajapur. In para 11 of the plaint, it has been averred that the cause of action arose against the defendant by reason of his receiving the loan on April 25, 1980, and on January 8, 1981, and his executing the documents in respect thereof as also by reason of executing a deed of mortgage on June 30, 1980, and on March 19, 1981, and subsequently executing an acknowledgment of indebtedness on April 21, 1983, in favour of the bank. 6. In reply to the averments made in paras 10 and 11 of the plaint, the defendant has disputed the jurisdiction of the Shajapur court, only on the ground that the mortgaged property was situate in village Karanavas, Tehsil and District Rajgarh and not in the Shajapur District and since the suit was for recovery of loan by sale of mortgaged property, the court at Shajapur had no jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the instant suit is for recovery of amounts due on loans advanced to the defendant and a decree for money has been claimed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prayer for recovery of the decretal amount by sale of mortgaged property is only an alternative prayer made in the suit. 8. It has also been contended that since a part of the cause of action has arisen at Shajapur as per the averments made in paras 10 and 11 of the plaint, the mere fact that the mortgaged property is situate in District Rajgarh would not affect the jurisdiction of the court at Shajapur in view of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent has not been able to seriously oppose the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the learned lower court at Shajapur has jurisdiction to try the suit since apart of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of jurisdiction of the Shajapur court. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the learned lower court at Shajapur has jurisdiction to try the suit since apart of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of jurisdiction of the Shajapur court. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The finding of the learned lower court on issue No. 1, relating to jurisdiction, is reversed and it is held that the learned lower court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. 12. Accordingly, reversing the finding of the trial court on the question of jurisdiction as above, the case is remanded to the learned lower court to decide the suit in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the learned lower court on May 10, 1991. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.