JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved defendant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it disconcurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff/appellant herein is driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Anil Kumar filed a suit for declaration that the letter No. PF/REC/6251 dated 20.03.1998 and subsequent letter NO. nil of May, 1998 issued by the defendant to recover Rs.67,200/- to mentally harass and to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of present employer and others are illegal and have no binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to work anywhere with decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to issue such letter to injure the good will and reputation of the plaintiff and in the alternative suit for damages. There are averments that the plaintiff was appointed as lecturer in Computer Science land Engineering Department by the defendant vide reference No. PF/REC/1921 dated 31/1/1996 and post was purely temporary and his services could be terminated by giving one month notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice period. The plaintiff was on probation for a period of two years and the period of probation could be extended under the rules and regulations by the defendant. The plaintiff joined as Lecturer on 8.2.1996 after acceptance of the offer at Una. The plaintiff submitted his resignation on 5.2.1998 by giving one month's notice and he was relieved after completion of one month's notice on 6.3.1998. Even otherwise the plaintiff was never informed about the non-acceptance of the resignation till 6.3.1998 as plaintiff is no more in service under the defendant. Lateral, the defendant issued letter No. PFG/REC/6251 dated 20.03.1998 to the plaintiff through his present employer demanding Rs.67,200/- from the plaintiff in lieu of the training imparted by the defendant for Electrosoft certification course in May, 1997. The defendant also issued reminder in the third week of May, 1998 threatening to recover the amount of Rs.67,200/- through the police. Lateral, the defendant issued letter No. PFG/REC/6251 dated 20.03.1998 to the plaintiff through his present employer demanding Rs.67,200/- from the plaintiff in lieu of the training imparted by the defendant for Electrosoft certification course in May, 1997. The defendant also issued reminder in the third week of May, 1998 threatening to recover the amount of Rs.67,200/- through the police. The plaintiff received the above letter at Una as directed by the present employer and the defendant also rang up to the plaintiff at Una either to deposit Rs.67,200/- or to face police action. The plaintiff underwent training w.e.f. 5.5.1997 for eight weeks. As per letter two surety bonds along with personal bond are to be executed by the plaintiff to pay double the amount in case he did not serve the college for one year after the training. The training fee was Rs.33,600/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled for any kind of payment from the plaintiff as no bond has been executed by him in this respect, therefore, the letter dated 20.03.1998 and subsequent letters have been issued by the defendant with malafide intention to spoil the career of the plaintiff on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds. The plaintiff visited the defendant's office in the last week of March, 1998 and requested not to act arbitrarily and in unlawful manner, but the defendant refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, preliminary objections have been taken inter alia maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, cause of action, estopple, suppression etc. On merits, the appointment of the plaintiff on probation for two years in the defendant department is admitted. The probation period is alleged to be extended under the rules. It is averred that the plaintiff joined the service on 8.7.1996 at Jalandhar. It has been alleged that in fact the plaintiff applied on 1.5.1997 for undergoing Microsoft Engineering training with an undertaking to serve the college for at least one year. The defendant vide letter dated 12.5.1997 accepted the offer for Microsoft certification course w.e.f. 5.5.1997 for eight weeks with the conditions which are fully enunciated in para 2 of the written statement. The defendant vide letter dated 12.5.1997 accepted the offer for Microsoft certification course w.e.f. 5.5.1997 for eight weeks with the conditions which are fully enunciated in para 2 of the written statement. It has also been admitted that the plaintiff underwent training for eight weeks and plaintiff was required to serve the college for one year as defendant had paid the training fee of Rs.33,600/-. The defendant has legal right to recover the said amount by filing the suit at Jalandhar. Despite reminders the plaintiff did not execute the bond. 4. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/respondent wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the letter NO. PF/REC/6251 dated 20.3.1998 and subsequent letters issued by the defendant are illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file present suit? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, if so, to what effect? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/respondent before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 31.05.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the first Appellate Court has acted with illegality and irregularity in returning findings that the Court at Una did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit? Substantial questions of Law No.1. 8. Whether the first Appellate Court has acted with illegality and irregularity in returning findings that the Court at Una did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit? Substantial questions of Law No.1. 8. The reason which prevailed upon the learned Appellate Court to reverse the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trail Court, whereby, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, imminently, rested upon the factum of none of the conditions encapsulated in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), provisions whereof extracted hereinafter, begetting satiation, thereupon, it concluded that the suit of the plaintiff warranted dismissal. “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.” 9. The plaintiff's suit for declaration anvilled upon letter dated 20.03.1998 borne in Ex.DW1/J and upon subsequent letter embodied in Ex. PA, was concerted to be maintainable before the learned trial Court, on anchor of the plaintiff receiving the aforesaid letters at Una, wherefrom, he contended that with hence a part of cause of action accruing and arising within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, thereupon, his suit was properly constituted also was maintainable. PA, was concerted to be maintainable before the learned trial Court, on anchor of the plaintiff receiving the aforesaid letters at Una, wherefrom, he contended that with hence a part of cause of action accruing and arising within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, thereupon, his suit was properly constituted also was maintainable. Significantly, also when the afore extracted provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, empower the plaintiff to institute a suit within the territorial limits of the Civil Court concerned, within whose jurisdiction cause of action in part or in whole arises, cause of action in part or in whole whereof is espoused to arise within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, on anvil of his receiving the aforesaid communications at Una. Even if, assumingly, the aforesaid contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that hence the plaintiff's suit was maintainable before the learned trial Court also his concomitant impugning contention qua the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court that the suit is not maintainable before the learned trial Court, given no part of cause of action arising within the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction, hence lacking vigour, is imbued with some strength, thereupon, it was imperative for the plaintiff to adduce cogent evidence in support of the aforesaid contention displaying that the communications, respectively comprised in Ex.DW1/J and in Ex.PA standing received by him at Una. However, a perusal of the aforesaid communications, though unveil that Ex.PA stood addressed to the subsequent employer of the plaintiff at its head office located at New Delhi besides a perusal of Ex.DW1/J reveals that it alike Ex.PA stood addressed to the subsequent employer of the plaintiff at its office located at New Delhi, yet the effect of the aforesaid exhibits is of theirs evidently not standing received by the plaintiff at Una, thereupon, he cannot contend that either in whole or in part the relevant cause of action accruing vis-a-vis him within the territorial jurisdictional limits of Civil Courts concerned located at Una nor he can contend that his suit was maintainable before the learned trial Court located at Una. Even though Ex.DW1/F stood received by the plaintiff at Una, yet with his in succession thereto joining his duties under the defendant at its College located at Jalandhar also hence effect thereof stood effaced besides when the declaratory decree claimed by the plaintiff is not with respect to Ex.DW/1F rather is with respect to the aforesaid exhibits, exhibits whereof evidently stood not received by him at Una, renders his suit to be not maintainable before the learned trial Court. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.