JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Petitioners in the present revision are the Defendants and the opposite party is the Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 54 of 1996 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge 2. Ramdayal Umraomal Vs. Pannalal Jagannathji Rourkela. In the said suit the Plaintiff claiming herself as Sales Agent under Hindustan Times Ltd., Defendant No. 1, has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: xx xx xx (i) To restore the Sales Agency of the Plaintiff; (ii) To resume supplies of their publications to the Plaintiff at Rourkela; (iii) to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs. 1,19,396.04 (One Lakh Nineteen thousand three hundred ninety six and paisa four only) being her Security Money in deposit with Defendant plus interest thereof and a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation and damages for breach of the contract and other amounts of money which may appear to be due to the Plaintiff from the Defendants at the trial of the Suit; (iv) to pay to the Plaintiff the costs of the suit' (v) To grant any other relief or reliefs xx: 2. Defendants in the written statement, besides refuting the Plaintiff's claim, have urged that the court at Rourkela does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. By filing a separate petition they prayed that question of jurisdiction of the court should be tried as a preliminary issue. 3. Upon hearing the parties the learned court below came to hold that the question of territorial jurisdiction being mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue having so held it rejected the Defendants' prayer and it is against that order the present revision is filed. 4. For determining the question raised at the Bar reference may be made to Order 14, Rule 2, CPC which reads as under: 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. 1. Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. 2. Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on' an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-. 2. Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on' an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-. (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any taw for the time ( being in force, and for that purpose may if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 5. This sub-rule was substituted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976. Law prevailing under the un-amended Rule was that where issues of both fact and law arose in the same suit and the court was of the opinion that' 'the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it was obligatory of the court to try those issues in the first instance and to postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until' after the issues of law had been' determined. In order to avoid piecemeal trial and protraction of litigation the aforesaid Rule underwent amendment in 1976 after which discretion is given to the Court and no duty is cast upon it to decide any issue as preliminary issue. According to Sub-rule (1) of the amended Rule, the normal rule is that all the issues arising in,the suit must ordinarily be tried together notwithstanding the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issue. However, Sub-rule (2) -Which is an exception to Sub-rule (1) says that where the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law which relates to jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, then is that case the court has a discretion to determine the said issue as a preliminary issue. A question relating to jurisdiction of the court to try the suit may be a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact. A question relating to jurisdiction of the court to try the suit may be a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact. The judicial opinion is unanimous that an issue relating to Court's jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence, but if such an issue is a mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. (see Shyama Sundar Mohapatra Vs. Janaki Ballav Patnaik and Others, : A.I.R 1979 MP Ramdayal Umraomal v. Pannalal Jagannathji; and Basti Ram Roop Chand Vs. Radhey Shyam Gulab Chand and Another. the above being, the settled ) position, I will now turn to the facts of the present case whether the question of territorial' jurisdiction of the court, in seizing of the suit can be tried as a preliminary issue. 6. The Plaintiff as an, agent of Hindustan Times Ltd., Defendant No. I, was getting the newspapers and in return was making payments. Some disputes between the principal and the agent arose, as a consequence the latter's agency was terminated. So in order to restore the agency Of' in the alternative to pay her back the security money with compensation, see filed the aforesaid suit. 7. Defendants besides traversing the Plaintiff's assertions, contended that the court before which the suit was filed does not have territorial jurisdiction. According to them, the contract of agency was entered into, between the parties in the office of the Defendants at New Delhi and all payments were made at New Delhi and as provided' iii/Clause 15:0{:the agreement, the court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain any dispute that may arise between the parties. In support of such contention, they could not produce the agreement if any to show that only the court at Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 8. As provided in Section 20(c), Civil Procedure Code, a suit shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Cause of action means every fact which if traversed would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his case. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff right to the relief against the Defendants. Cause of action means every fact which if traversed would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his case. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff right to the relief against the Defendants. In a suit for agency action, the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place made by the agent, In such a suit a part of cause of action may arise within the jurisdiction of one court and the other part within the jurisdiction of another. In the present case, considering the nature of allegations and the reliefs as prayed for by the Plaintiff, it cannot be said in absence of any materials on record that the court below lacks jurisdiction to try the suit. In my opinion, therefore, the question T of Jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances being a mixed question of law and fact can be decided on the basis of evidence to the adduced; by the parties. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned court below being impeccable does not call for interference in this revision. 9. In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed