JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The issue in this revision application involves no intricacies so far the question of law involved. The respondent as the plaintiff preferred Money Suit No. 115/2013 against the present petitioner/defendant. Both the petitioner and the respondent are companies having its registration under the Companies Act, 1956. The address of the present petitioner/defendant as apparent from the copy of the plaint annexed to this petition is shown as having its registered office at Chiring Chapori, Dibrugarh. The present defendant/petitioner had obtained a work order from M/S Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd.(BCPL) having its project at Lepetkata in the district of Dibrugarh. The present plaintiff/respondent entered into a sub-contract with the defendant/petitioner as against the work order obtained by the petitioner from M/S BCPL. Dispute between the parties to the suit arose and as a result the plaintiff/respondent was constraint to file the Money Suit No.115/2013 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. Summons was served. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff/respondent while filing the suit impleaded the Principal of the present defendant/petitioner i.e. M/S BCPL as the proforma defendant No.2. On receipt of summons, the defendant/petitioner preferred an application bearing No.2425/2013 under Section 20 read with Section 151 with a prayer for returning the plaint for filing it in the proper court having territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties. However, the present respondent did not file any written objection. The learned court of Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati vide order dated 05.03.2014 dismissed the said application No.2425/2013 on the ground that the accrual of cause of action for filing a suit involves mixed question of law and facts which is required to be determined on the basis of the evidence. Order dated 05.03.2014 is put under challenge in this revision application. 3. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to decide an application raising objection of territorial jurisdiction of a court ought to be decided when the same is raised at the very first instance. The basis for deciding such objection are the averment made in the plaint and not beyond that. In support of the said submission, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to decide an application raising objection of territorial jurisdiction of a court ought to be decided when the same is raised at the very first instance. The basis for deciding such objection are the averment made in the plaint and not beyond that. In support of the said submission, Mr. Dhar relies West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (3) GLT 101 and Goodricke Group Ltd & Anr Vs. Mahmud Hasan Sultan & Anr. Reported in 2011 (4) GLT 170. Placing reliance on the ratio of the said decisions, Mr. Dhar submits that the issue before the court below ought to have been decided on the averments made in the plaint. As held in the said decisions, the learned court below was wrong in rejecting the application inasmuch as the plaint is devoid of any averments being made about the accrual of cause of action under the territorial jurisdiction of the court below. As held by the court below, the question of territorial jurisdiction is not a mixed question of law and facts rather it is an issue to be answered on the pleadings made by the plaintiff. As such, the court below has failed to apply its jurisdiction and wrongly passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sharma submits that an affidavit-in-opposition had already been filed by the respondents to bring to the notice of this court that the defendant/petitioner had demanded for payment of outstanding dues to the plaintiff/respondent addressing a letter dated 01.01.2013, at its address at Guwahati. In addition to the said letter, another document is filed showing the registered office of M/S BCPL to be at Guwahati. Mr. Sarma submits that the cause of action for the suit accrued at Guwahati following the demand so made as aforesaid. Mr. Sarma submits that there is no point in allowing the prayer of the petitioner inasmuch as the cause of action for filing the suit for the plaintiff/respondent arose at Guwahati. Submitting so, Mr. Sharma sought for the rejection of the petition without any interference by this Court. 5. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. In 2007(3) GLT 101, (supra) this Court held that the question of jurisdiction has to be determined primarily on the averment made in the plaint. Submitting so, Mr. Sharma sought for the rejection of the petition without any interference by this Court. 5. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. In 2007(3) GLT 101, (supra) this Court held that the question of jurisdiction has to be determined primarily on the averment made in the plaint. Similarly, in 2011 (4) GLT (supra) this Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction if raised in a court, the same is to be decided from the contents of the plaint. On the perusal of the plaint by this court in Money Suit No.115/2013, it is very much apparent that the defendant No.1 company has its registered office at Dibrugarh. The subject matter of the work is also situated in the district of Dibrugarh. Except mentioning the demand notice to the plaintiff/respondent at Guwahati, there is no other averment with regard to accrual of the cause of action for filing the suit at Guwahati under the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below. Considering the same, the learned court below ought to have decided the issue raised by the defendant/petitioner by going though the plaint only, instead the learned court below restricted itself and came to a wrong conclusion that the issue involved in the said application needed evidence to decide Section 21 of the CPC is far more specific inasmuch as the objection with respect to place of suing must be taken in the court as first instance, at the earliest possible opportunity and for all cases where issues are settled or before such settlement. As the objection with respect to place of suing can be settled before settlement of issues, so Section 21 of CPC empowers the court with a definite understanding that such objection is to be decided on the averments made in the plaint, inasmuch as issues cannot be settled until and unless written statement is filed. Considering the same, the order dated 05.03.2014 passed in Misc(J) Case No.539/2013 arising out of Money Suit No.115/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati is set aside directing the learned court below to rehear the petition No. 2425/2013 and dispose of the same as per the observations made hereinabove. 6. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 7. Interim order passed earlier is set aside. 6. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. 7. Interim order passed earlier is set aside. Parties to the present petition shall appear before the learned Court below on 25.10.2017 and on submission of a copy of this order, the learned court below shall accordingly dispose of the said application, confining to the averments made in the plaint.