JUDGMENT 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.01.2019 submits that while rejecting the application moved by it under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court below has erroneously opined that the issue would be decided subsequently. It is submitted that the said issue could have been entertained by allowing the application and converting the suit into a regular suit. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the concerned Trial Court has found that part of cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court in terms of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and prima facie as the case is at the initial stage, such verdict cannot be given that the jurisdiction does not lie. 3. This Court is in full agreement with the observations as it is the settled law at the stage of moving an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint would be taken into consideration. 4. Once the Court below found that the averments have been made with regard to the transaction having been taken place at Jodhpur, the learned Trial Court was right in concluding that prima facie the suit was to be entertained in terms of Section 20 (3) CPC. 5. The other aspect which is an observation made by the Trial Court of framing all the issues at the relevant stage, is concerned, the same does not call for any interference at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the present filed by the petitioner is misconceived and the same is dismissed.