JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 21.08.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019 in O.S.No.12 of 2015.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Defendants are the revision petitioners herein. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 before the learned Chief Justice, Puducherry, made over to the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, for recovery of money by an unpaid seller for goods sold and delivered. The sale of the goods is Pre-used MRI machine and based on which, the amount fell due and payable is a domestic sale. 3. Defendants have filed written statement disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and also raised the plea of limitation inter alia contended on merits. Trial has commenced. P.W.1 was examined in chief. At this juncture, the defendants have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.615 of 2019 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC to take up the jurisdiction issue as preliminary issue. The said application was dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants. 4. Ms.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.R.Meenal, would contend that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Puducherry Court and as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.11.2007, only Mumbai Courts have jurisdiction to resolve any dispute between the parties and jurisdiction of other Courts are specifically excluded. 5. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff made submissions in support of the order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. In the enquiry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019, no oral or documentary evidence has been filed before the trial Court. 8. 5. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff made submissions in support of the order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. In the enquiry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019, no oral or documentary evidence has been filed before the trial Court. 8. The suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 was filed for recovery of money based on the ground that the defendants have purchased pre-owned MRI Medical System (MRP 7000) machine from the plaintiff viz., M/s.Emsons (Agencies) private limited company, which is carrying on business in sourcing, selling and servicing of medical equipments having branch office at Puducherry, wherein, the defendants have purchased machine and agreed to pay the cost as agreed and after delivery of equipment from Puducherry to Karnal, Haryana at the defendants’ site, had paid partly liquidation of their liability on various dates from 20.05.2008 to 05.08.2009 and subsequent to that, the defendants have failed to pay a sum of Rs.8,59,333/-, which is balance consideration, so far claiming the same, the suit for recovery was filed. 9. The main contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that they had pleaded about the lack of jurisdiction in detail setting out that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Puducherry Court and hence, prayed to take up the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue. 10. Per contra, the stand of the respondent/plaintiff is that merely because the registered office of a concern is situated in a particular place will not vest the Court at that place with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The supply was effected from the respondent’s office at Puducherry and invoice was raised from Puducherry and the statement of accounts are maintained within the jurisdiction of District Court at Puducherry and hence, the Additional District Judge at Puducherry, is vested with the jurisdiction to try and hear the matter and the question of the II Additional District Court at Puducherry taking up the jurisdiction issue, at the preliminary issue for jurisdiction does not arise to the extent of question of jurisdiction stands settled as for the submissions made herein and also for the reasons enunciated in the plaint. 11 (a). Perused the list of various documents filed in the typed set of papers. For the reasons best known, no such document has been filed before the trial Court. 11 (b). 11 (a). Perused the list of various documents filed in the typed set of papers. For the reasons best known, no such document has been filed before the trial Court. 11 (b). The core issue that has to be gone into in this civil revision petition is whether the Court at Puducherry has territorial jurisdiction to try the issue and with regard to the same, the relevant provision is Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides for institution of other suits where defendant resides or cause of action arises. “12. Explanation Section 20 and Sub clause (c) of Civil Procedure Code would read as follows:- Section 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 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. (emphasis supplied) Explanation - A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principle 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.” 12. The plaintiff is having the branch office at Puducherry wherein the invoice to the suit was said to have raised and the defendants said to have purchased the property from Puducherry. 13. The copy of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties has been filed in the typed set of papers. In one set of Memorandum of Understanding, signature of the parties is not found and in another set of Memorandum of Understanding, signature of the parties is found. 13. The copy of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties has been filed in the typed set of papers. In one set of Memorandum of Understanding, signature of the parties is not found and in another set of Memorandum of Understanding, signature of the parties is found. With regard to the clearance of money and maintenance of the payment made by the defendants, certain documents have been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in respect of ledger account from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, which was mentioned as Bombay while in the ledger account from 01.04.2008 to 27.03.2009 and from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, it was maintained at Puducherry branch office. These two documents were disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners. 14. In the decision reported in 1989 SCC OnLine Orissa 69, a Division Bench, has observed as under:- “5. To the core question in the case formulated earlier, the position is well settled that in a civil suit piecemeal trial of the issues should be avoided and attempt should be made to consider all the issues together as far as possible. This principle is embodied in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule contains an exception where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. If the court is satisfied that a particular issue passes the tests laid down in sub-rule (2) and if the court thinks it fit it may postpone the settlement of the other issues until after those issues have been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 6. ........ The provisions of sub-rule (2) is in the nature of exception to the general procedure provided in sub-rule (1) and Rule 2 of Order 14. The courts have therefore viewed with reluctance any request to take up an issue as a Preliminary issue. 6. ........ The provisions of sub-rule (2) is in the nature of exception to the general procedure provided in sub-rule (1) and Rule 2 of Order 14. The courts have therefore viewed with reluctance any request to take up an issue as a Preliminary issue. From the provisions in sub-rule (2) it is manifest that whether an issue is to be tried as a preliminary issue or not is at the discretion of the trial court and while exercising its discretion, the Court must be satisfied that the suit or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only and that issue relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. 7. .......... The point for determination is whether the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be said to involve pure questions of law or it involves mixed questions of law and facts. If it is the latter, it does satisfy the tests laid down under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code and the issue has to be considered along with other issues at the hearing of the suit.” 15. In the decision reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638 [Ramesh B.Desai V.Bipin Vadilal Mehta, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC confers no jurisdiction on a Court to decide the mixed questions of fact and law as a preliminary issue. It is clearly held in the above judgment that where for a decision on an issue of law (such as a suit being barred by a particular law) depends firstly upon the decision of a disputed fact then the issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.” 16. In the decision reported in 2004 (4) SCC 671 [Hanil Era Textiles Ltd., Vs. In the decision reported in 2004 (4) SCC 671 [Hanil Era Textiles Ltd., Vs. Puromatic Filters (P) LTD], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “Construction of import of use of words “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” in ouster clause - Held, when ouster clause is clear, unambiguous and specific, accepted notions of contract would bind parties, and unless absence of ad idem can be shown courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction - When ouster clause is not so clear and unambiguous, in appropriate cases maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius may be applied - What is an “appropriate case” shall depend on facts of case - When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred - Contract has therefore to be properly constructed - Contract Act, 1872 - S.37. Whether jurisdiction successfully confined to Mumbai - Since clause not qualified by words like “alone”, “only” or “exclusively”, held, regard had to be had to other facts and circumstances of case to infer whether jurisdiction of all other courts except courts in Mumbai was excluded - On facts, held, such an inference could be made out. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” - expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed”. 17. After taking the proposition of law as pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in relation to cause of action and exclusion of jurisdiction and trying the jurisdiction point as a preliminary point and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the defendants, only the Mumbai Court has jurisdiction to try the issue. 17. After taking the proposition of law as pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in relation to cause of action and exclusion of jurisdiction and trying the jurisdiction point as a preliminary point and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the defendants, only the Mumbai Court has jurisdiction to try the issue. The reliance placed upon by the revision petitioners in the Memorandum of Understanding, as noted above, is found to have certain defects besides the same is not marked before the trial Court so also with regard to the plea of respondent/plaintiff that the company has branch office and in the said Puducherry office alone, the accounts have been maintained. So also on the part of the respondent/plaintiff, these documents also have not been marked before the Trial Court during the enquiry. Admittedly, the truth and genuineness of these documents have been disputed by both sides. 18. Taking into consideration the fact that since there is a branch office for the respondent/plaintiff at Puducherry, certain documents have been filed before the trial Court along with the plaint to show that the transaction has been completed through the communications between the revision petitioners/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff from the Puducherry office and also taking note of the fact that as per the written statement, it is seen that the invoice dated 20.05.2008 for the sale of Pre-used MRI machine to the revision petitioners was raised in Puducherry and the Value Added Tax (VAT) for sale of goods was suffered at Puducherry. Hence, part cause of action arose in Puducherry under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Invoice dated 20.05.2008 is not disputed by the revision petitioners herein in the written statement. 19. Admittedly, the invoice raised is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal District Court at Puducherry and the invoice is not disputed in the written statement filed by the revision petitioners/defendants in the suit. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is not an issue of law simpliciter. It is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. 21. The revision petitioners herein seek to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. It is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. 21. The revision petitioners herein seek to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of Law and fact and therefore, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. 22. As I find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the terms of Memorandum of Understanding are under dispute, a disputed question of fact cannot be a question of law and such a question of law which before the same can be decided requires decision upon a disputed question of fact, cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. 23. Accordingly, I find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a disputed question of fact and hence, the same cannot be equated as a question of law to decide the disputed question of fact. The evidence has to be let in and the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. 24. In this view of the matter, [i] the order dated 21.08.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, in I.A.No.615 of 2019 in O.S.No.12 of 2015, is hereby confirmed on different reasoning and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. [ii] The trial Court is required to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [iii] No costs. [iv] The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.