JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.1993 holding that the Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The plaint has been ordered to be returned. 2. While arriving at the conclusion learned Trial Judge has held as under: "Obviously, the payments were to be made at Faridabad and the plea raised by the defendant is not devoid of any merit and substance." 3. Further finding returned is that admittedly the factory of the defendant is situated at Faridabad and the bills on which suit was based I evidenced that the goods were supplied at Faridabad. It has been further held that merely because defendant had one of its office at Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi. 4. It may be noted that the plaint has been returned without any evidence being recorded. 5. Issue therefore has to be decided with reference to the averments made in the plaint and no more. 6. A perusal of the plaint evidences that suit sought recovery of Rs.80,000/-. Defendant, a company registered Under the Companies Act was sued at Delhi with respect to not only its registered office being at Delhi but also on the averments made in the plaint as under: "The plaintiff had been supplying the goods to the defendant from Delhi office and an account was opened by the plaintiff in the Account books of the plaintiff regularly maintained............. The defendant had been making payments from its head office at Delhi to the plaintiff or from the Paridabad office of the plaintiff. The amount was payable at Delhi and the orders used to be placed by the defendant to the plaintiff at Delhi." 7. I fail to understand as to how learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that obviously the payments were to be made at Faridabad. 8. In the teeth of the averments made in the plaint that the payments which were made at Delhi and that remaining payments had to be made at Delhi said finding cannot be sustained. 9. Even otherwise, issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided with reference to Sections 16 to Sections 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. For money suits, the place where the defendant actually resides or carries on business would be the place where a suit can be filed. 9. Even otherwise, issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided with reference to Sections 16 to Sections 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. For money suits, the place where the defendant actually resides or carries on business would be the place where a suit can be filed. For a corporate entity, the residence of the defendant would be the place where its registered office is situated. Further, even in respect of the place where cause of action wholly or in part arises would be the place of territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case I notice that in the plaint a specific averment has been made to the effect that the plaintiff has an office at Delhi as well as Faridabad and that deliveries were made to the defendant at its factory at Faridabad from both offices. It has been categorically averred that a single account at plaintiffs head office was maintained and that payments had been made by the defendant to the Head Office for not only the goods supplied from the Head Office at Delhi but even from the Branch Office of a the plaintiff at Faridabad. It has also been pleaded that orders used to be placed by the defendant on the plaintiff at Delhi. 11. Suffice would it be to state the place where payments are made or are supposed to be made would be the place where part cause of action would accrue. Similarly place where order is placed would also be the place b where cause of action accrues. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 13. Impugned order dated 14.1.1993 is set aside. Issue No.1, i.e. Whether this Court has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? - OPD is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant holding that on the averments made in the plaint Courts at Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction. 14. TCR be returned forthwith. 15. Noting that the suit was filed in the year 1992 I direct the learned Trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the suit and try and pronounce decision by the end of the current calender year. 16. Needless to state, learned trial Judge would serve notice of the suit being restored upon the defendant before proceeding ahead in accordance with law. . 17. No costs. Appeal allowed.