Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide which it dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by defendant no. 1/revision-petitioner that the Civil Court at Palwal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against it. 2. During the pendency of the suit, an application, under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by defendant No. 1/revision petitioner i.e. Haryana State Pharmacy Council. It was stated that it is a body incorporated under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and had its office at Chandigarh only, having no branch office anywhere in the State. It was further stated that the mandate of the petitioner Council is to issue registration/renewal of registration to the persons, who qualify to get the same as Pharmacist. However, licence to run Medical Store/Chemist shop was issued by the Drug Controller Haryana, which was having its branch offices like the office of defendant No.2/respondent. It was further stated that defendant No.2/respondent was not working under the control of defendant no.1/revision-petitioner. It was further stated that since defendant No.l/revision-petitioner was having its office at Chandigarh only and no branch office anywhere, in the state of Haryana, nor defendant No.2/respondent was working, in any capacity under him, the Civil Court at Palwal, was having no right to entertain and try the suit, against it. Accordingly, a prayer was made, that the plaint was liable to be returned to be presented against defendant No.l/revision-petitioner in a Court, at the place where it was having its office. 3. In reply to the application, it was stated that the Civil Court at Palwal had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The remaining averments made in the application were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record,the trial Court, dismissed the application, vide the order impugned. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order impugned, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents on record, carefully. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record,the trial Court, dismissed the application, vide the order impugned. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order impugned, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the time of arguments, took up the same stand, as was projected in the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition, it was stated by him that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff/respondent against defendant No.l/revision-petitioner, at Palwal. He further submitted that since the Courts at Palwal had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the suit, the plaint was liable to be returned. He further submitted that the order impugned being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Defendant No. 1/revision petitioner has got its office only at Chandigarh. It is charged with the duty of issuance of registration and renewal of registration to the persons, who qualify to get the same as Pharmacists. Respondent No.2 is not working under the revision-petitioner, and has no connection with it. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- "Section 20. It is charged with the duty of issuance of registration and renewal of registration to the persons, who qualify to get the same as Pharmacists. Respondent No.2 is not working under the revision-petitioner, and has no connection with it. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- "Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." A plain reading of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly goes to reveal that the suit could be filed where cause of action, wholly or in part, arose or at a place where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. As stated above, defendant no.l/revision-petitioner has its office only at Chandigarh. It has got no branch office, in the State of Haryana, at any place. It, therefore, works for gain at Chandigarh. No cause of action, arose to respondent No.l, against defendant No.l/revision petitioner at Palwal. In these circumstances, the suit against defendant no.l/revision petitioner was not maintainable, at Palwal. Since the Civil Court at Palwal, had no jurisdiction to try the suit, it was required of it to return the plaint for representation before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 9 The order impugned, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. 9 The order impugned, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff/respondent for representation against defendant no.1/revision petitioner, in a Court of competent jurisdiction, with a direction to appear in that Court on a particular date. 11. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.10.2009 at 10.00 AM positively, for further proceedings.