JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for return of plaint, has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner through her attorney Harjit Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,58, 574/- against National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ludhiana as well as Regd. Office 3, Kolkata. The petitioner had got insured an Eicher Canter No.2002 bearing registration No.HR-37A-4101 with respondent no.3 vide policy No.150100/31/04/6312236 processed by Basukinath Consumer Pvt. Limited. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2009 regarding which case FIR No.20 dated 11.02.2005 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat. The claim was submitted with the Insurance Company at Ludhiana and the respondents appointed Surveyor for examination of the vehicle The said vehicle was examined within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana, however, the claim was not settled. The vehicle is still standing with Uttam Sales and Services, Ludhiana since 20.02.2005. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed joint written statement by taking one of the preliminary objections that Civil Court at Ludhiana has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The claim was lodged with respondent no.3 and the same was also repudiated by respondent no.3. It was further averred that Civil Court at Kolkata has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. When the fact of having jurisdiction to try and decide the suit by the Court at Banashal, Kolkata came to the knowledge, the petitioner-plaintiff moved application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.09.2013. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents clearly averred in written statement that the claim was lodged with respondent no.3 at Kolkata, the claim was processed by respondent no.3 at Kolkata and the claim was repudiated by respondent no.3 at Kolkata, therefore, the Civil Court at Kolkata has jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner filed the suit in Ludhiana under the wrong impression that surveyor was appointed by the Local Office at Ludhaina i.e. respondent no.1. Even PW 1 has admitted in the cross-examination that insurance was obtained from defendant no.3-National Insurance Company Ltd. at Kolkata. 5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Section 20 CPC which enacts the rule as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court reads as under: 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 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 the 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. Explanation – 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 where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 7. Explanation – 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 where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 7. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 CPC inter alia refer to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant carries on business and clause (c ) on the other hand refers to a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises but the defendant may not be carrying on business there. The procedure has been made so that justice might be brought as near as possible to every man’s hearth-stone. Principle behind the provision of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 is that suit be instituted at a place where the defendant is able to defend the suit without undue trouble. Explanation to Section 20(a) clearly indicates that it would be open to the plaintiff to file a suit in the Court of a place where any of the branch of the said respondent-company may happen to be located. Admittedly, a branch of the respondent-company is located at Ludhiana and by virtue of Explanation, the Company shall be deemed to be carrying on business there whether or not that branch office in fact carries on any business. 8. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was insured at Ludhiana through Basukinath Consumer Pvt. Limited; the claim was submitted at Ludhiana; notice was also served upon respondent no.1 at Ludhiana and reminder was also sent to respondent no.1 at Ludhiana. Respondent no.1 is one of the branch offices of respondent no.3 located at Ludhiana and this gives jurisdiction to the Court at Ludhiana to decide the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any document to establish that insurance policy was obtained directly from respondent no.3 at Kolkata or through an agent of the insurance company at Kolkata. It does not appeal to reason that a person residing at Ludhiana will choose to have an insurance policy for its vehicle from a far off place at Kolkata when the policy can be obtained through a local agent of the company. It does not appeal to reason that a person residing at Ludhiana will choose to have an insurance policy for its vehicle from a far off place at Kolkata when the policy can be obtained through a local agent of the company. In case the insurance proposal has been accepted by the insurance company through its agent located at Ludhiana, the Court at Ludhiana certainly has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising out of the insurance policy. Since there is no clear and direct evidence on record with regard to the place of offer and acceptance of insurance policy, the petitioner can agitate the issue before the trial Court which will be decided on the basis of evidence that may be adduced by the parties. In the present case, the cover note has been issued by Basukinath Consumer Pvt. Limited, not by respondent no.3-Company. As part of the cause of action arose at Ludhiana and respondentcompany has its branch office at Ludhiana, the Civil Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit within the territorial jurisdiction at Ludhiana is maintainable. 9. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. ----------------