Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is defendant no. 7 in Money Suit No. 10/1996, which was filed by opposite parties no. 1 to 4 for realisation of certain amounts from the defendants jointly and severally at the government rate and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.12,1998 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-ll, Muzaffarpur rejected the petition of the defendant-petitioner dated 19.1.1998 for holding that the suit in question was not maintainable in the court below at Muzaffarpur and also that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. 4. It transpires that exactly the same points had been involved in Civil Revision No. 1669 of 2000 and after considering the said points the said civil revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2005. 5. As in the aforesaid civil revision it is quite apparent in the instant case also that the head office of the defendant-petitioner is at Calcutta, from where all the transactions had taken place and even the complaint had been filed by the plaintiffs at Calcutta. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as theCode for the sake of brevity) specifically provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit resides or carries on business there. The explanation of the said section also provides that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place. 6. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances, all the cause of action had arisen at Calcutta. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that only those courts have territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit where either the defendant resides or the cause of action has arisen or where the agreement had taken place. Here it is an admitted fact that the defendant neither resides nor has its head office at Muzaffarpur but it is admitted fact that the defendant has its head office and resides at Calcutta. Here it is an admitted fact that the defendant neither resides nor has its head office at Muzaffarpur but it is admitted fact that the defendant has its head office and resides at Calcutta. Moreover, it is also apparent that although the decision was taken by the authorities concerned at Patna but the agreement took place at Calcutta and the delivery of goods were made by the defendant to the carrier at Calcutta. Since the matter is well settled that the possession of goods passes from consigner to consignee as soon as goods are loaded, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, the delivery of goods had taken place at Calcutta. So far other responsibilities of the defendant-petitioner are concerned, they cannot affect the specific provisions of Section 20 of the Code. Furthermore payments were also made at Calcutta, therefore, the suit was clearly not maintainable at Muzaffarpur and the learned Subordinate Judge-ll, Muzaffarpur had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the said suit. The learned court below has completely overlooked the said facts and circumstances as well as provisions of law and has rejected the defendants petition merely by holding that the said issue will be decided at the time of final adjudication. In my view, there is no occasion for continuing the suit as the court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear it and since the suit is concerned with the interest of public at large, therefore, it requires more attention of the court and hence in the interest of public at large the learned court below. should not have allowed the suit to continue knowing full well that it was not maintainable there. 7. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the learned court below is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for filing it before a court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction. 8. With the aforesaid directions this civil revision is allowed.