ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,738/- against the petitioners; the plaintiff impleaded the Company through its Managing Director and its Depot at Jaipur as defendants. 3. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants, inter alia, indicating that there is a specific condition in the bill that the transaction is subject to Panjim (Goa) jurisdiction and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and the same be ordered to be returned for being presented before the Court having territorial jurisdiction. 4. The application was resisted by the plaintiff; it was, inter alia, claimed that there was no indication in the bill regarding jurisdiction of Courts at Goa; it was further indicated that the goods were purchased from the authorised office of the defendant Company from Jaipur and cheque was given by the plaintiff for Bank situated at Jodhpur and, therefore, the application has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that from the perusal of the bill, it was apparent that the same was issued from the Jaipur office; the goods were supplied from the Jaipur office and besides the above, the defendants have not filed any affidavit and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, a perusal of the bill (Annexure- 3) clearly indicates that parties had agreed that transaction would be subject to Panjim (Goa) jurisdiction; it is further submitted that the plaintiff in his reply to the application denied any such condition in the invoice, which is factually incorrect; the goods were sent from Goa to the Depot of the petitioners at Jaipur and from there it was supplied to the plaintiff and, therefore, in terms of the stipulation indicated in the invoice the jurisdiction only lies with the Courts at Goa and the trial court committed error in dismissing the application. 7. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the invoice clearly indicates that bill has been issued by the petitioner – Beiersdorf India Pvt. Ltd. and the same has been indicated as C/o Bagai Enterprises, 10, Kartarpura, 22, Godown Jaipur – 302 006 and further it contains a stipulation "Transaction is subject to Panjim (Goa), Jurisdiction" the petitioners have also produced large number of documents, which are tax invoices and the same also have been issued from the same address, clearly indicating that the petitioner is having its office/depot at Jaipur and that the goods in question have been supplied from the said place; the petitioners have failed to indicate as to how any part of cause of action arose at Goa regarding the transaction where the goods have been supplied from Jaipur and have been received at Jodhpur. 9. Provisions of Section 20 CPC read 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 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 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 our business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." 10. Explanation. – A corporation shall be deemed to carry our business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." 10. A perusal of Section 20 CPC clearly indicates that the suit can be filed where a defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business and explanation to Section 20 provides that 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. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners have got its office at Jaipur, from where the transaction has taken place and bills have been issued. 12. It is well settled as has been laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Company : AIR 1992 SC 1514 that though it is permissible for parties to restrict jurisdiction to a particular Court, if part cause of action arises at more than one place, however, it is not open for the parties to confer jurisdiction on a Court, where no cause of action has arisen. 13. The petitioners by way of present stipulation in the bill are seeking to confer jurisdiction on Courts at Goa, where, no part of cause of action has arisen and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. No case for interference is made out. 14. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.