JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2015 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi in O.S.No.165/2010. 3. The brief facts required for the purpose of disposal of this appeal as follows. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money of Rs.10,24,755/- together interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff firm that it is a Proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor carrying business of supply of materials to the Government, Semi Government and private agencies and others. Defendant No.1 was in need of Unitex flooring carpet beck bound PU-22A and beck bound PU-22B and other various materials for the purpose of rehabilitation center of Gandori Nala Project and hence defendant No.5 fixed the rate on the recommendation of the Superintending Engineer and the defendant No.6 and therefore, the defendant No.6 called for the tender for supply of the said materials and hence, the plaintiff filed the tender which was accepted by the defendant No.6 and hence, the order for the supply of the said materials was issued, accordingly, the plaintiff supplied 2304 sq.ft. Unitex flooring carpet at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft. worth of Rs.3,57,120/- and also supplied 825 kg beck bound PU-22 A and 175 Kg beck bound PU-22-B containing 170 kg at the rate of Rs.2,975/- which was worth Rs.5,05,756/-. The materials were delivered to the store keeper of division No.1 Gulbarga depot for which delivery challan was issued on 15.05.1999 and 20.01.2000 and thereafter, the defendants paid Rs.2,12,780/- to the plaintiff in the year 2001 and still there is a balance of Rs.6,48,472/- from the defendants. The defendants went on postponing the payment on one or the other reasons. The plaintiff also found various discrepancies in the price of the materials supplied by others. Therefore, a committee was appointed to submit report for fixing the price of various items. But no price was fixed by the committee regarding the materials supplied by the plaintiff. On 29.09.2009, defendant No.6 has written a letter to the plaintiff admitting his claim. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 04.02.2010 calling upon them to pay the balance amount with interest. Some of the defendants have replied and some of them remained silent. On 29.09.2009, defendant No.6 has written a letter to the plaintiff admitting his claim. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 04.02.2010 calling upon them to pay the balance amount with interest. Some of the defendants have replied and some of them remained silent. Therefore, cause of action arose to file the suit in the month of February-2010 and also in the last week of October- 2010. 5. Pursuant of the suit summonses, defendant Nos.1 and 5 have entered appearance through the learned ADGP and defendant Nos. 3 and 6 through their counsel. Defendant Nos.3 and 6 have filed joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff contending that the alleged transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.4 has taken place in the office of defendant No.4 at Hebbal of Chittapur taluk and therefore, the Court situated at Chittapur has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. But the plaintiff showing wrong address of the defendant No.4 in the plaint as Gulbarga has filed this suit and therefore, the Court cannot entertain the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. They also contended that the plaintiff has not complied any norms fixed under the law and the prices fixed by the committee. However, the defendants have made excess payment to the plaintiff. On these grounds the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge has framed the issues and one additional issue was framed as follows: ADDITIONAL ISSUE (1) Whether this court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? 7. The record goes to show that the Trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties and after hearing both the parties disposed of the suit which was decreed by the judgment dated 24.09.2011. The said judgment and decree was challenged in RFA No.6018/2012 before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench which remanded the matter to the Trial Court for consideration afresh by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, giving opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.3 and 6 filed their written statement. Defendant No.6 has specifically contended that the alleged transaction of supply of the materials took place in his office at Hebbal of Chittapur taluk and therefore this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.3 and 6 filed their written statement. Defendant No.6 has specifically contended that the alleged transaction of supply of the materials took place in his office at Hebbal of Chittapur taluk and therefore this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Thereafter, the Trial Court heard on the parties and passed the impugned judgment by which additional issue No.1 was held in the negative stating that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thereby ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting before the Senior Civil Judge, Chittapur. 8. This impugned judgment and order is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred in the same rank by which they were referred to before trial Court. The plaintiff-appellant has urged in the appeal memo that the Court below has failed to exercise the power vested with it. DW1 has admitted that the order of supply of materials were placed from his office at Kalaburagi and materials were supplied to his office at Kalaburagi and part payment was also made at Kalaburagi. Therefore, the Court at Kalaburagi has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It is also stated that the defendants are residing and carrying on business at Kalaburagi and plaintiff can file a suit before the Court which has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. The Court below has failed to appreciate that as per the provision of Sections 20 A and B CPC, suit is to be instituted at a place where defendants is able to defend without undue trouble. That it is not a case of 6th defendant that there is a undue trouble in defending the suit. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order be set aside. 9. After having heard both the counsels, the following points arise for consideration before this Court. (1) Whether the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and illegal and passed without appreciating the material facts and evidence holding that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? (2) What order? 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant relying on Ex.P3 and Ex.P23 submitted that the plaintiff has entered into contract with the defendant No.5 in his office, then situated at Kalaburagi, part payment was also made at Kalaburagi. (2) What order? 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant relying on Ex.P3 and Ex.P23 submitted that the plaintiff has entered into contract with the defendant No.5 in his office, then situated at Kalaburagi, part payment was also made at Kalaburagi. Ex.P25 is the delivery note for supply of materials at Kalaburagi. He further submitted that only because subsequently the office of defendant No.6 was shifted to Chittapur, the plaintiff cannot be asked to file the suit in the said place. Even a fraction of cause of action give rise to jurisdiction. Therefore, the plaintiff can institute a suit in a place were the cause of action wholly or in part arise. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chittapur and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the Ex.P24 to Ex.P80, the plaintiff has supplied the materials to the office namely IPC division No.1 Store at Kalaburagi. This office is still situated in Kalaburagi. However, the plaintiff has not made this office as one of the defendants. There was no written contract, the plaintiff himself has impleaded defendant No.6 in his suit, showing his address at Hebbal taluka Chittapur by way of amendment to the cause title. Letter Ex.P1 is different and not in respect of the materails supplied at IPC Division No.1. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to judgment in RFA No.6018/2012. He also submitted that the witness of the defendants, DW1 has stated in the cross examination that his office is situated in Chittapur since 1999. Therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to supply materials to defendant No.6 at Kalaburagi. The learned counsel also submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are not at all concerned with the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.6. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. The suit was previously disposed of by judgment dated 24.09.2011 which was challenged by the defendants in RFA NO.6018/2012 before this Court. The copy of the judgment in the said RFA is available in the record. This Court while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2011 and remanding the matter has observed that the plaintiff has not specifically averred in the plaint about the exact place where the cause of action arose. The copy of the judgment in the said RFA is available in the record. This Court while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2011 and remanding the matter has observed that the plaintiff has not specifically averred in the plaint about the exact place where the cause of action arose. It is also observed that there is no privacy of contract between plaintiff and defendant No.5 against whom the suit was filed. This Court further observed that the trial Court has failed to make a discussion about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chittapur. Even in the absence of written statement of defendants, the court is expected to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to give the finding about the territorial jurisdiction and legitimacy of the claim. Therefore, it appears only after remand of the matter, the additional No.1 regarding the jurisdiction was framed. This Court has also observed regarding Ex.P1 dated 29.09.2009 which was seriously disputed by the defendants. The matter was remanded with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of within four months from the date of first appearance keeping in mind, the observation made in the judgment before this Court. Therefore, it is crystal clear that this Court observed that the trial Court ought to have considered the question of territorial jurisdiction in view of the pleadings of the parties. On that basis, the trial Court framed additional issue No.1 and after giving opportunity to all the parties proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has relied on the decision in the case of Laxman Prasad V/s Prodigy Electronics Ltd. and another, reported in, (2008) 1 SCC 618 . In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Bare reading of Clause (c) leaves no room for doubt that a suit would lie in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen, wholly or partly." 13. The learned counsel has also relied another decision in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited V/s Sanjay Dalia and another, reported in, (2015) 10 SCC 161 . In this case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Under Ss. The learned counsel has also relied another decision in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited V/s Sanjay Dalia and another, reported in, (2015) 10 SCC 161 . In this case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Under Ss. 20(a) to (c) CPC, a plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to a place of business or residence of the defendant and can file a suit where the cause of action arises It would be a great hardship if in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at a place where the cause of action arise, such plaintiff is compelled to travel to where the corporation has its principal office Place of subordinate office of defendant and where cause of action arises, in whole or in part should be convenient to the plaintiff and the defendant corporation having an office at such place, will also be under no disadvantage." 14. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision in the case of M/s Malaprabha Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Belgaum District V/s M/s. Buildmet Pvt. Ltd., reported in, (2013) ILR(Kar) 94 and M/s Bhagvathi Express Pvt. Ltd., V/s New India Assurance Co., Lrtd., Divisional Office X, Bangalore & another reported in, (2014) ILR(Kar) 3977. In this decision, this Court has held that "In a suit, the cause of action will consist of making of the contract and its breach at the place where it is to be performed. Therefore, a suit for breach of contract can, at the option of the plaintiff be brought either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where the breach was committed." Therefore, it is necessary to consider as to whether plaintiff made out that at least part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Kalaburagi in order to institute a suit before the Court at Kalaburagi. As per the plaint averments, the transaction was between plaintiff and defendant No.6 to supply certain materials. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he supplied materials at Kalaburagi and part payment was made at Kalaburagi. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is State of Karnataka through its Deputy Commissioner, defendant No.2 is the Government of Karnataka through it's Secretary Water Resources Dept. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he supplied materials at Kalaburagi and part payment was made at Kalaburagi. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is State of Karnataka through its Deputy Commissioner, defendant No.2 is the Government of Karnataka through it's Secretary Water Resources Dept. M.S.Building, Bangalore, defendant No.3 is Karnataka Nirwari Nigam through it's Managing Director, Coffee Board Office 4th Floor, Bangalore, Defendant No.4 is the Chief Audit Officer, Karnataka Nirwari Nigam, Upra Building, Dharwad and defendant No.5 is the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Project Zone, Gulbarga. Absolutely there is no material to show that there is a privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the orders were placed by defendant No.6 and accordingly he has supplied materials to defendant No.6. The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Nirwari Nigam, Bennitora Project Division No.4, Hebbal taluk Chittapur, District Gulbarga as described in the plaint. Therefore it was necessary for the plaintiff to plead in clear terms that when he supplied the materials the office of defendant No.6 was situated at Gulbarga and he has supplied the materials to defendant No.6 in his office at Gulbarga. The documents produced by the plaintiff in Ex.P24 to Ex.P80 shows that the materials were supplied to the office of IPC Division No.1 Store at Gulbarga. This does not pertain to defendant No.6. Defendant No.6 has got examined his witness as DW1, in his cross examination a specific suggestion was put to him regarding situation of his office, he has stated that in 1999 his office was situated at Hebbal in Chittapur taluka and now also it is situated in the said place. He has denied that his office was shifted from Gulbarga to Hebbal in the year 2004. The plaintiff has not produced any document in this regard. Only on the basis of a suggestion to DW1 that his office was shifted in the year 2004 and that till then it was functioning at Gulbarga cannot be accepted. On the other hand, it was the duty of the plaintiff to describe the place where cause of action arose in the plaint. In para 12 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated as follows: 12. On the other hand, it was the duty of the plaintiff to describe the place where cause of action arose in the plaint. In para 12 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated as follows: 12. "The above stated facts constitute the cause of action and immediate cause of action arose in the month of February- 2010 and subsequently the defendants have flatly denied in the last week of October-2010 to make payment to the plaintiffs." 15. Even it is not stated that the cause of action arose at Gulbarga. On the other hand as per cause title in the plaint, the office of defendant No.6 is situated at Hebbal Taluka Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga. The other defendants have no concern with the transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.6. When the suit was filed summons was issued and served on defendant No.6 at Hebbal Taluka Chittapur. As already stated the plaintiff has not stated about the exact place where the cause of action arose for filing the suit. The plaintiff would have filed the suit before the Court at Gulbarga in case, he is able show that the transaction took place between himself and defendant No.6 at Gulbarga and that he supplied the materials to defendant No.6 at Gulbarga. The provision of 20 (a) and (b) CPC makes it clear that suit like the present one should be filed in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or each of the defendants or any of the defendants actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally work for gain at the time of the commencement of the suit. At the time of commencement of the suit one of the above circumstances have to be made out by the plaintiff in order to file a suit in the particular place. Even Ex.P1 was issued on 29.09.2009 by defendant No.6 while working at Hebbal office and not at Gulbarga. Ex.P3 is the letter written by the plaintiff himself on 23.09.2009 addressing to defendant No.6 showing his address at Hebbal Taluka Chittapur. On the other hand, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice at Ex.P7 dated 04.02.2010 to the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Nirwari Nigam Bennitora Project Division, Gulbarga who is not party to the suit. No legal notice was issued to defendant No.6. On the other hand, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice at Ex.P7 dated 04.02.2010 to the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Nirwari Nigam Bennitora Project Division, Gulbarga who is not party to the suit. No legal notice was issued to defendant No.6. Therefore, considering the entire materials on record, the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record it becomes crystal clear that the Court at Gulbarga has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and as such the trial Court has come to the proper conclusion to return the plaint to the plaintiff for the presentation before the jurisdictional Court. The other grounds urged before this Court that the defendants are harassing the plaintiff though they are officers of the State cannot be accepted in order to hold that the Court at Gulbarga has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Under these circumstances, I answer the point No.1 in the negative. 16. In view of my finding to point No.1, the appeal being devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.