JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the order dated 08.01.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 4, Kota whereby he has returned the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the proper court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the plaint, the plaintiff firm is a registered A-Class contractor with the Public Works Department (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Department', for short), Government of Rajasthan. The Department had invited tenders for constructions of an approach road from Village Garda. The plaintiff had submitted his tenders for the same, which was accepted vide letter dated 25.03.1982. Thereafter, the parties had entered into an agreement. According to the agreement, the work on the said approach road was to begin on 24.03.1982 and was to end on 23.09.1983. But due to the laxity on the part of the officers of the Department, the lay out plan, the non-possession of the land, non-supply of the raw-material and for other cogent reasons, the work could not be completed. It was only after the land was required in December, 1984, the plaintiff completed the said work by 18.03.1985. Because of the inordinate delay in completion of the work, the plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 7,18,100/- including the interest from the Department. 3. The respondent filed their written statement wherein they denied the averments made by the plaintiff. According to the respondent, the blame lay on the plaintiff's shoulder and not on them. The trial court framed nine issues. However, vide order dated 13.05.1999 and vide order dated 27.11.2000, two more issues were added. Issue No. 8(B) was with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Gurucharan Singh Sethi, one of the partners of the Firm. In order to substantiate its case, the respondent examined two witnesses. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, it returned the plaint to the plaintiff with a direction to submit the same before the proper court. Therefore, this appeal before this Court. 4. Undoubtedly, according to the evidence of Gurucharan Singh Sethi, agreement between the appellant and the respondent was entered into at Baran. Hence, it returned the plaint to the plaintiff with a direction to submit the same before the proper court. Therefore, this appeal before this Court. 4. Undoubtedly, according to the evidence of Gurucharan Singh Sethi, agreement between the appellant and the respondent was entered into at Baran. The running bills were paid from the Department Office at Baran. Most Importantly, the work of construction of the approach road was also in District Baran. The fact that the agreement was entered into between the parties at Baran is also stated by the defendant's witness D.W. 2 Murli Manohar Gupta. 5. Therefore, the entire cause of action arose in District Baran. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in returning the plaint to the appellant and directing him to present the plaint before the proper court at Baran. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 08.01.2002. However, as the case has been pending for the last one decade, we direct the Additional District Judge, No. 4, Kota to send the record of Civil Suit No. 107/1996 titled Firm M/s. Sethi Construction Co. v. State of Rajasthan to the District Judge, Baran so that the case can be taken up there at the earliest. We also direct the concerned court at Baran to take day-to- day evidence in the case and to complete the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the record from the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 4, Kota. 6. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.Appeal Dismissed as Above. *******