S. N. KAPOOR ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the leaned Trial Court has dismissed the suit against respondent/defendant no. 1, namely commerce Bank AG, Ness 7-9, Hamburg, germany. ( 3 ) THE brief facts giving an occasion to filing of this Revision petition are as under :- ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- against the respondents on the ground that the plaintiff company received an order for supply of ready-made garments and made shipment for the value of Rs. 1,66,871. 50p from defendant-respondent no. 4 namely M/s. Dutta Imports and Exports, Hamburg. Defendant no. 4 opened an irrevocable letter of credit no. 9618139 with defendant no. 1 namely the Commerz Bank, Hamberg, germany, and defendant no. 4 issued the letter of credit on behalf of defendant no. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner supplied the goods on 15th April, 1991 through Vaz Forwarding (P) limited, 27-Barakhamba road. The Punjab national Bank is the corresponding Bank of defendant no. 1-Commerz Bank, Hamburg, germany, maintaining account of Commerz bank in India. The said letter of credit in question was advised to defendant no. 2 - punjab National Bank, the plaintiff-petitioner approached through Lakshmi Commercial bank, now merged in Canara Bank (respondent no. 3) for negotiations of its documents under L. C. NO. 9618139 dated 20th October, 1980 issued by defendant no. 1. Then the Lakshmi Commercial Bank instructed defendant no. 1 on 6th May, 1981 intimating that the documents have been drawn under L. C. No. 9618139 dated 20th october, 1980 and all the terms of the credit had been complied with and the concerned bank was requested to remit the proceeds through Commerz Bank, drawn in favour of the then Lakshmi Commercial Bank. After prolonged correspondence the Lakshmi commercial Bank informed that respondent no. 4, M/s. Dutta Imports and Exports were willing to accept documents against payment of Rs. 25,000/- only. The plaintiff petitioner did not accede to the request. When the payment was not made, the petitioner filed the suit, for recovery of Rs. 1,66,871. 50p as principal and Rs. 283,128. 50p as interest @ 18% per annum with quarterly rests. ( 5 ) IT is evident that the Commerz Bank is not an Indian Bank. The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 20 praying that the suit of defendant-respondent no. 1,66,871. 50p as principal and Rs. 283,128. 50p as interest @ 18% per annum with quarterly rests. ( 5 ) IT is evident that the Commerz Bank is not an Indian Bank. The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 20 praying that the suit of defendant-respondent no. 1 would be dismissed as the Civil Court at delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to determine the present suit, and no permission had been granted before proceeding against defendant no. 1 The learned Trial Court accepted the contention of respondent no. 1; and held that the respondent no. l neither resided nor carried out business in India and no leave could be granted for institution of suit against defendant no. l. Even though rest of the defendants did reside or work within the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Trial Court relied upon the judgment in Nandi Ram Vs. Cyan Chand and Ors. ILR (2) Allahabad 299 and took the view that the leave under section 20 C. P. C. could not be granted for defendant no. 1 and suit could not proceed. ( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision has been filed alleging that the matter is covered by Clause V of Section 20 CPC for the cause of action arose in Delhi for the payment of letter of credit was to be made in Delhi. He further submits on this basis that the impugned order is bad in law. ( 7 ) IN the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, mr. Neeraj Kaul, appearing on behalf of commerz Bank has submitted that the canara Bank in its written statement dated 22nd April, 1992 submitted that the Airway bill was dated 15th April, 1981 but the goods were to be airlifted on 28th April, 1981, as per the airway bill. However, documents were delivered by the plaintiff-petitioner to the branch Office of the Canara Bank, Maya Puri, on 29th April, 1981 only. The letter of credit was valid only upto 30th April, 1981. The said branch Office forwarded these documents to its Foreign Exchange Department of ELCB, which sent the same to the Commerz bank on 6th May, 1981. Defendant no. 1 informed on 23rd May, 1981 that the documents were not credit confirmed as credit expired on 30th April, 1981. Beneficiaries were contacted who were in no case prepared to accept the documents. Defendant no. 1 informed on 23rd May, 1981 that the documents were not credit confirmed as credit expired on 30th April, 1981. Beneficiaries were contacted who were in no case prepared to accept the documents. On 25th August 1981 a telex message was received from the Commerz bank, Defendant no. 4, to the effect that they would accept documents on the payment of Rs. 25,000/- only which the plaintiff refused. ( 8 ) ON this point, it is submitted that the bank Guarantee could not be invoked against commerz Bank and there was no cause of action arising against the Commerz Bank within the stipulated time. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, learned Senior-Counsel also drew the attention of the Court as well as of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the following language used in the letter of credit. That letter of credit provides "rs. Two Hundred thousand plus actual freight as evidenced in awb. All Bankers charges and commissions arising outside the Federal Republic of germany are for beneficiaries account" It also provides that "please send documents to commerz bank AG, Ness 7-9, 2000 Hamburg 11, quoting out No. 9617281. " It further reads "after receipt of strictly credit confirmed documents with us in Hamburg we shall remit proceeds to an Ind. Rs.-account to be nominated to us. " ( 9 ) IT is submitted on this basis by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent that since the documents according to the Bank were not sent by the petitioner s own Bank, the letter of credit could not be invoked. It is very much evident that the letter of credit was to expire on 30th April, 1981 in Hamburg. ( 10 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners, in response to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that since the payment was to be made in Indian rupees at Delhi through Punjab National Bank, parliament Street, it could not be said that the amount was not payable in Delhi and, therefore, cause of action would arise in Delhi. Learned Counsel submits that since the cause of action arose in Delhi, the suit could be filed in Delhi under Section 20 c . ( 11 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is desirable that one should refer to Section 20 c CPC. Section 20 c" reads as under:- "20. Learned Counsel submits that since the cause of action arose in Delhi, the suit could be filed in Delhi under Section 20 c . ( 11 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is desirable that one should refer to Section 20 c CPC. Section 20 c" reads as under:- "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction; (A) the defendant, or each 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; or (B) 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 do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (C) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. ( 12 ) SINCE the letter of credit provided for payment in Indian rupees at Delhi for the benefit of the petitioner-plaintiff and the goods were sent from Delhi on the basis of letter of credit, cause of action would arise when the goods were sent on the basis of letter of credit. The matter would be covered by clause c of Section 20 C. P. C Accordingly, it is not possible to accept that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi. ( 13 ) THE question that the Commerz Bank is not liable to pay in terms, for not sending documents to the Commerz Bank in time is not the question before this Court at this stage, though this may be a very important question which is to be argued before the learned Trial Court and not here, in this revision Petition, for the matter is confined to the question of jurisdiction of the Civil court in Delhi. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Revision petition in accepted and the question raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent shall certainly be considered by the learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and holding the responsibility of the parties. But, at the same time, I would like to make one thing clear that in case ultimately it is found that the Commerz Bank is not liable, then petitioner must face exemplary cost. ( 15 ) WITH these observations, the Revision petition is disposed of. Trial Court Record may be sent back immediately.