ORDER A.P. Shah, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the plaint and ordering its return for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction. .2. Since the plaint of the plaintiff had been rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, only the material pleas of the parties for purposes of this appeal are being narrated so as to bring the controversy into focus. 3. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of insecticides and pesticides and agro chemicals to its various customers. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which the defendant No. 2 is the managing partner. It is the case of the plaintiff that it supplied the pesticides from the year 1989, as ordered by the defendants and as a result of which a sum of Rs. 11,55,704/- became due and payable on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff and towards the part payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount, the defendants issued two cheques of Rs. 5,08,728/- and Rs. 5,51,258/- dated 9.10.1995 and 12.1.1996 respectively. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured and returned unpaid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in these circumstances issued notice dated 12.1.1996 regarding dishonour of cheques and filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,92,086/- along with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 1.1.1999. .4. In para relating to the territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff has averred in the plaint as under: .13. That the defendants office is situated in Delhi. They reside and work for gain at Delhi. The aforesaid cheques, towards the part payment were handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff at Delhi. The plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,92,086/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety two Thousand and Eighty Six only) along with the interest and costs from the defendants. Hence, this Honble Court has got the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit. .5. In the written statement, challenge to the territorial jurisdiction was raised in following terms: .3. That this Honble Court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial limits of this Honble Court. .5. In the written statement, challenge to the territorial jurisdiction was raised in following terms: .3. That this Honble Court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial limits of this Honble Court. A bare perusal of the plaint and the documents and the bills Nos. 60133, 60134, 60135 filed alongwith the plaint show that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff from Parwanoo (Himachal Pradesh) and bills were raised from Parwanoo to the defendants at Fatehabad (Haryana). Moreover, the invoices of the plaintiff contain an express stipulation that any dispute arose out of these bills are subject to Bharuch jurisdiction. It is submitted that the price of the goods were not payable at Delhi. The plaintiff has wrongly impleaded the defendants as a party to the suit in view of the preliminary objection No. 2 hereinabove. The suit is, thus, not maintainable and is liable to be returned for filing the same in the proper court. 6. Among the six issues, the following issue relating to territorial jurisdiction was treated as preliminary issue: Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit particularly in view of exclusion clause printed at the invoices issued by the plaintiff. 7. The main argument on behalf of the defendants was that the parties purposefully chose the place of settling the disputes subject to Bharuch jurisdiction where the goods were manufactured and the registered office of the plaintiff is situated. In support reliance was placed on the clause subject to Bharuch jurisdiction incorporated in the invoice raised by the plaintiff. The learned single Judge, however, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and Anr. [1995] 3 SCR 443 overruled this contention and concluded in para 13 as under: However, I am afraid that simply because the goods are manufactured at Bharuch, it cannot be said that part of cause of action arose at Bharuch. In so far as the defendant is concerned, goods were supplied from Parwanoo to the defendant at Fatehabad. Therefore, there is inherent lack of jurisdiction so far as Bharuch is concerned. 8. In so far as the defendant is concerned, goods were supplied from Parwanoo to the defendant at Fatehabad. Therefore, there is inherent lack of jurisdiction so far as Bharuch is concerned. 8. In the plaint it was categorically averred that the defendants reside and work for gain at Delhi and cheques towards part payment were handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff at Delhi. The learned single Judge, however, relying upon the decision in Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Company [1991] 3 SCR 391 and New Moga Transport Co. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 2154 held that since the goods were supplied from its Parwanoo Depot by the plaintiff to the defendants at its Fatehabad (Haryana) office, the contract was thus performed outside Delhi. Merely because the defendants have their office at Delhi would not confer the jurisdiction if the defendants also have their subordinate office at other place and cause of action has also arisen at that place and in that case suit will be filed only in the court within whose jurisdiction the company/corporation has its subordinate office and not in the court within whose jurisdiction it has a principal office. The learned single Judge further held that merely because the cheques given to the plaintiff are deposited by the plaintiff in Delhi would not be an indicator that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. 9. We are unable to sustain the findings of the learned single Judge. The judgment relied upon by the learned single Judge in Patel Roadways Ltd. and New Moga Trans-port Co. (supra) dealt with companies/corporations which had their subordinate offices at places other than the principal place of business whereas in the present case the 1st defendant is a partnership concern with no subordinate offices either at Parwanoo or Fatehabad. It has only a depot at Fatehabad where goods were delivered from Parwanoo, sales depot of the plaintiff. In the entire written statement there is not even a whisper that the defendants have their subordinate office either at Parwanoo or Fatehabad. Therefore, the finding that the goods were delivered at the defendants office at Fatehabad is clearly erroneous. There is no such plea at all in the written statement. In the entire written statement there is not even a whisper that the defendants have their subordinate office either at Parwanoo or Fatehabad. Therefore, the finding that the goods were delivered at the defendants office at Fatehabad is clearly erroneous. There is no such plea at all in the written statement. Further it is an admitted position that the defendant No. 1 - a partnership concern has office in Delhi and the partners of the defendant No. 1 are residing and working for gain in Delhi. It is the contention of the defendant No. 2 that the defendant No. 1 stood dissolved and the defendant No. 3 has taken over the business of the defendant No. 1. As such even according to the defendants the question of partnership having offices in Parwanoo or Fatehabad does not arise. 10. Under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure a court gets jurisdiction if the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits or jurisdiction or the cause of action arises, wholly or in part within such local limits. In the present case the defendants reside and carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the payment of money under the contract is a part of the performance under the Act and will furnish a cause of action. It has been well established that in the case of goods sold and delivered, a suit for the price thereof will lie where the same is to be paid. (see K.E.P.V. Venkatachalam Pillai v. Rajaballi M. Sajun AIR 1935 Mad 663 and Union of India v. Kamal Kumar Goswami and Ors. AIR 1974 Cal 231 It is thus clear that this Court is having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 11. In the result, the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. 12. Let the suit be placed before the appropriate Court on 24th October, 2008. Appeal allowed