Territorial jurisdiction in commission agency disputes upheld where payment was to be made at the creditor's residence.

The Township Court of Myinmu had territorial jurisdiction because part of the cause of action arose there within section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. In a suit by a principal against commission agents for alleged negligence, misconduct and breach of instructions, the place of performance and payment was material. The evidence showed that accounts were sent to Myinmu and money due to the plaintiff was sent there, and the contract carried an implied obligation that payment be made at the plaintiff's residence. Section 49 of the Contract Act did not displace the ordinary rule that a debtor must seek out the creditor to pay. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Township Court of Myinmu had jurisdiction to entertain the suit on commission agency contract, and whether part of the cause of action arose there within the meaning of section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The suit was by a principal against commission agents for loss allegedly caused by negligence, misconduct, and breach of instructions. The place of performance and payment was material. The evidence showed that accounts were sent to Myinmu and money due to the plaintiff was sent there, and the contract carried an implied obligation, arising from the terms of the transaction and the necessities of the case, that payment should be made at the plaintiff's residence. Section 49 of the Contract Act did not exclude the ordinary rule that a debtor must seek out his creditor to make payment. On that footing, part of the cause of action arose at Myinmu. The District Judge's view that the court lacked jurisdiction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Township Court of Myinmu had jurisdiction, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction failed in favour of the appellant.

---