M. H. S. ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) -THE petitioner No. 1 in the instant writ petition is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia, with the object of setting up a factory at Nasarigunj, Digha, Patna for the purpose of manufacture of Jute twine. The petitioner No. 2 is both a shareholder and director of petitioner No. 1 company. ( 2 ) IN the instant writ petition what is assailed is;" (I)a tender notice for sale published by the Bihar State Financial Corporation in Business Standard. (ii)Letter dated 20. 12. 86 issued by the Bihar State Financial Corporation to the Advertiser. " ( 3 ) THE impugned tender notice for sale has been published in various newspapers including 'business Standard'. By the said public notice offers are invited for purchase of the mortgaged assets of the petitioner No. 1 company on "as is whether is basis. " ( 4 ) BY the impugned letter dated 20. 12. 86, respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation has requested the advertising agent to publish the said tender notice in the newspapers specified therein. A copy of the said letter has also been forwarded to the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 company at their address at 150, B. K. Pal Avenue, Calcutta. ( 5 ) EARLIER, the respondent Finance Corporation had issued a notice dated 31. 12. 84 calling upon the petitioner No. 1 to pay to the respondent an aggregate sum of Rs. 20,91,953. 32. as the petitioner had defaulted in repayment of the loan advanced to it. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said notice dated 31. 12. 84, the petitioner moved the Hon'ble High Court at Patna. The said writ petition was registered as C. W. J. C. No. 2433 of 1986 and was dismissed by the said court on 5. 9. 1986. ( 7 ) IN the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for withdrawing and/or cancelling the said notice dated 31. 12. 84 as also the tender notice for sale published in various newspapers including the said Business Standard dated 30. 12. 86. In paragraph 20' of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the tender notice dated 31. 12. 86 in the Business Standard was published at Calcutta and the said letter dated 20. 12. 12. 84 as also the tender notice for sale published in various newspapers including the said Business Standard dated 30. 12. 86. In paragraph 20' of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the tender notice dated 31. 12. 86 in the Business Standard was published at Calcutta and the said letter dated 20. 12. 1986 were addressed to and received by the petitioners at 150, B. K. Pal Avenue, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this court. That petitioner No. 1 inter alia, carries on business from Calcutta and most of the Directors of petitioner No. 1 company are residing at Calcutta. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Corporation filed the above application G. A. No. 2290 of 1998 inter alia, praying for dismissal of the writ petition with costs and for vacating the ex-parte interim orders dated 16. 1. 1987 and 23. 2. 1987. ( 9 ) THE foundation for the said application of respondent is that the earlier order of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition constitutes res judicata and more importantly that the invocation of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is stated that no part of the alleged cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that the petitioners place of business is at Patna, Bihar. The loan was obtained by the petitioners from the respondent Corporation under a Deed of Mortgage dated 9th August, 1975 executed at Patna. The loan was advanced in Patna. The mortgaged properties are situated in or about Patna. The repayment of loan was to be made to the respondents at Patna. The Deed of hypothecation of tangible moveable properties dated 9. 8. 75 was also executed at Patna. The Deed of personal guarantee of Directors of petitioner No. 1 company including the petitioner No. 2 dated 9. 8. 75 was also executed at Patna. ( 10 ) IN substance, it is stated that the entire transaction took place at Patna and that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The publication of tender notice in newspaper at Calcutta or the prior intimation of the same by letter dated 20. 12. 86 would not confer jurisdiction upon this court. The publication of tender notice in newspaper at Calcutta or the prior intimation of the same by letter dated 20. 12. 86 would not confer jurisdiction upon this court. ( 11 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the writ petitioner to the above application G. A. No. 2296 of 1990, the above averments have been denied though in a general way. In paragraph 10', it is stated that the writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company and its activities are controlled and managed by the Board of Directors of the Company from its registered office at Calcutta. The recording of accounts, buying and selling of raw materials were at all material times used to be handled and were dealt with at the registered office from Calcutta. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel have relied upon certain precedents reference to which shall be made presently. ( 13 ) IN Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and Anr. , reported in AIR 1961 SC 532 . The majority opinion was that the view taken in AIR 1953 SC 210 and AIR 1954 SC 207 that there is two fold limitation on the power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories, was upheld as correct. ( 14 ) IT is now well settled that prior to insertion of Clause (1a) by the Constitution, 15th Amendment Act, 1963 in Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, which has been renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act, 1976, it was held that the writs do not run beyond the territories in relation to which each High Court exercises jurisdiction. A High Court could not issue a writ or order under Article 226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. A High Court could not issue a writ or order under Article 226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Under Clause (1a), the renumbered as Clause (2) by 42nd Amendment, if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court, it may issue a writ against a person or authority, resident within the jurisdiction of another High Court. ( 15 ) IN Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. , reported in 1994 (4) SCC 711 ; the above legal position has been reiterated and in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, it is stated that the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into the consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. To put it differently the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. ( 16 ) IN ONGS's case (supra), publication of tender notification at Calcutta, it was held, did not constitute facts forming an integral part of cause of action. ( 17 ) IN State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. M/s. Swaika Properties and Anr. , reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289 the service of notice under section 52 of the Rajasthan Improvement Act, 1959 at the registered office at Calcutta, it was held, could not give rise to a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, unless the service of such notice was an integral part of cause of action. ( 18 ) APPLYING the above principles to the instant case and keeping in view the averments and submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, as above, in support of their submission that the part of the cause of action has arisen in the instant case at Calcutta, it must be held that the facts pleaded did not constitute facts forming an integral part of cause of action. It cannot be said that based upon the facts pleaded, any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. It cannot be said that based upon the facts pleaded, any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. ( 19 ) THE averments contained in the application of the respondent Corporation, referred to supra, show that the entire cause of action has arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The entire loan transaction has taken place at Patna where the properties are situated and are subject matter of mortgage. The loan amounts are payable at Patna. The respondent Corporation is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. ( 20 ) IN matters relating to contracts, it is the situs of the contract, i. e. the place where the contract was executed or where it is to be performed or its performance completed or where money as in the instant case, is payable constitute part of the cause of action. A notice demanding payment whereby an opportunity is afforded to the defaulter before proceedings contemplated under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation are taken does not constitute part of the cause of action much less the place where the same is received when what is assailed is the proposed action under section 29 of the said Act. ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTIAL acts such as mere publication of the tender notice in a newspaper at Calcutta or the prior intimation thereof by letter dated 20. 12. 86 or even location of the registered office of the petitioner Company at Calcutta do not constitute facts forming part of the cause of action when relief claimed against the proposed action of respondent corporation in exercise of the power vested in it under section 29 of State Finance Corporation's Act, 1951. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the above writ petition is not maintainable in this court. In the result, the above writ petition shall stand dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Since the jurisdiction of this court has not been invoked bonafide, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting exemplary costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the writ petitioner to pay the respondents Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) by way of costs. Petition dismissed