Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This civil revision has been directed against the order dated July 26, 1982 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for directing the Arbitrator to file the Award in the Court so that the same could be made Rule of the Court was declined after holding that the Court at Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said application. 2. The brief facts are that tenders were invited for execution of some work at Ludhiana. The petitioner-firm applied in response thereto and having submitted the lowest tender, its offer was accepted. The agreement to execute the work was entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, Provisional Division, P.W.D. (B&R), Ludhiana at Ludhiana only. Some dispute having arisen between the parties, it was referred to the Arbitrator for resolution thereof and the arbitration proceedings too were held at Ludhiana. It was after the passing of the Award of the Arbitrator that the application was moved by the petitioner before the Civil Court at Chandigarh to direct the Arbitrator to file the Arbitration Award so that it could be made the Rule of the Court. Upon an objection taken on behalf of the State of Punjab that the Court at Chandigarh lacked territorial jurisdiction, an issue was framed as to whether the Court at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try the petition or not. This issue was answered by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Chandigarh against the petitioner and consequently the application afore-mentioned was dismissed. 3. Heard Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and have also perused the original record in relation to acceptance of the tenders and the agreement entered into between the parties. 4. It is not disputed that the tender for the execution of work was floated at Ludhiana; the agreement was also entered into between the parties at Ludhiana; the work was executed at Ludhiana and the dispute having cropped up between the parties the arbitration proceedings were also held at Ludhiana which led to the passing of the Award in favour of the petitioner. Thus, no cause of action or part thereof arose outside Ludhiana, namely, at Chandigarh, which could confer jurisdiction upon the Civil Court at Chandigarh. Thus, no cause of action or part thereof arose outside Ludhiana, namely, at Chandigarh, which could confer jurisdiction upon the Civil Court at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that since acceptance of the tender was communicated to it vide Exhibit P-l at Chandigarh, a part of cause of action had actually arisen at Chandigarh, as held by the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1239. A pointed reference has been made on behalf of the petitioner to the observations made by their Lordships in paras 11 and 15 of the report. 5. Before adverting to the principle of law enunciated in the afore-mentioned judgment, it will be apposite to bring on record that the recommendations regarding "acceptance" of the lowest offer made by the petitioner-firm in response to the tender notice, were made by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D. (B&R), Ludhiana, "Approval" to these recommendations was also accorded at Ludhiana only by the Superintending Engineer, Ludhiana Circle, P.W.D. (B&R), Ludhiana vide his Memo. No. 10Misc./3/8572/EE dated 18.9.1972 which is part of the original record. A further "approval" also appears to have been granted by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Branch, Punjab whose office at that time was at Patiala, as is evident from a copy of letter No. 9839/W dated 6.9.1972 in the original record. Since the petitioner-firm was located at Chandigarh, a copy of the afore-mentioned communication was sent to its Chandigarh address. However, the agreement between the parties is subsequent to the afore-mentioned communication which admittedly was executed at Ludhiana only. The observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminarts case (supra) to the effect that "Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a Court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated", are to be appreciated in the context where such a communication is the last and final communication and thus amounts to entering into an agreement between the parties. 6. 6. In the case in hand, after acceptance of the lowest offer of the petitioner in response to the tender notice, there exist an agreement duly executed at Ludhiana which contains "arbitration clause" giving rise to the arbitration proceedings between the parties, therefore, it is the Civil Court at Ludhiana alone which enjoins upon the jurisdiction to entertain a request like the one made by the petitioner before the Civil Court at Chandigarh. 7. It may be mentioned here that "cause" of action" in relation to the relief sought by the petitioner is not a dispute arising out of "acceptance of its lowest offer" in response to the tender notice, namely, acceptance which was conveyed to the petitioner at Chandigarh. The execution of work pursuant to the agreement had already taken place. The actual cause of action has emanated out of the "arbitration clause" contained in "the agreement" which was entered into between the parties at Ludhiana and was not a part of the communication sent to the petitioner at Chandigarh while accepting its lowest tender. Admittedly, the arbitration proceedings too took place at Ludhiana where the Award was passed. Thus, even while armed with a communication regarding acceptance of lowest tender, no cause of action or part thereof in relation to the nature of relief sought by the petitioner from the Civil Court at Chandigarh, can be said to have arisen at Chandigarh. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this Civil Revision which is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.