JUDGMENT 1. D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the order and judgment dated 17th March, 1989, passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 713 of 1985, whereby the prayer of the applicant for amendment of his written statement by incorporating a paragraph challenging the jurisdiction of the court has been rejected. It appears that the defendant-opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 took a loan of Rs. 1,72,687. 15 from Moradabad Branch of the State Bank of Patiala and committed default in repayment thereof. The bank, therefore, instituted the suit for recovery of the loan together with interest thereon at the rate of 15%. The applicant is impleaded in the suit as defendant in the capacity of guarantor. 3. Initially, the applicant admitted in his written statement that the court below had jurisdiction to try the suit. Later on, the applicant moved an application praying for amendment seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. The application has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. It cannot be disputed that, basically, the suit is one for recovery of the loan advanced by the Bank against the defendants, including the applicant. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction of the court shall have to be determined with reference to the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Code, Under Section 20 of the Code, subject to the limitations contained in Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Code, every suit is to be, instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant, each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or caries on business, or personally works for gain; or any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who did not reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce, or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 5. 5. It is not disputed that, except the applicant and the defendant-opposite party No. 4, all the defendants do reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court below. IT is also not in dispute that the applicant who resides at Muzaffarnagar, a place outside the local limits and jurisdiction of the court below, acquiesced to the institution of the suit as is evident in paragraph 13 of his written statement, a photo copy whereof is before this court as Annexure-1 to the stay application. 6. The applicant having acquiesced to the institution of the suit vide his pleadings contained in paragraph 13 of the written statement cannot be permitted to turn about and take the plea of lack of jurisdiction. He is estopped from doing so. In a case where there are more than one defendant and any of the defendants actually and voluntarily resides outside the local limits of the jurisdiction where the suit is instituted the institution of the suit at a place where any of the defendants, at the time of the institution of suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain would be in order if either the leave of the court is given for institution of the suit, or the defendant who does not actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain in the local limits of the jurisdiction of that court acquiesces in the institution of the suit, la the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that the defendant-applicant did acquiesce in the institution of the suit. 7. Thus, it is apparent that the court below has jurisdiction to try the suit. The court below did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in relation to exercise of jurisdiction by rejecting the prayer of the applicant for amendment raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction. The impugned order is sound in law and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. 8. In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.