Territorial jurisdiction and cause of action failed in Delhi because the material facts arose outside its limits.

Territorial jurisdiction under the original side of the Delhi High Court depended on whether any material fact constituting the cause of action arose in Delhi. The contract was executed in Bombay and performance was also to take place there; execution of the bank guarantee in Delhi and its transmission to Bombay did not amount to an essential part of the cause of action. Since a cause of action requires material facts that must be proved to obtain relief, the relevant facts arose outside Delhi, so the plaint was rightly returned for filing before the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court so as to entertain the suit on its original side.

Analysis: The contract was executed in Bombay and its performance was also to take place there. The execution of the bank guarantee in Delhi, followed by transmission to Bombay for performance of the contract, did not by itself constitute an essential part of the cause of action. A cause of action requires material facts that must be proved to obtain relief, and those facts in this case arose outside Delhi.

Conclusion: No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The plaint was rightly directed to be returned for presentation to the proper court, and the jurisdiction objection succeeds in favour of the appellant.

---